5 ms·

I've got an issue with this one about muskets. https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/issues/5 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/i

I've got an issue with this one about muskets. https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/issues/5 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/issues/5

bacondude3 7y ago
Among other problems with the sentiment you expressed, it should be clear to anyone that the 2A has always been intended to cover far more than just muskets. At the time the 2nd Amendment was created, rifles were already in popular use and were vastly superior to muskets since they could be shot far more accurately and were able to be reloaded faster than muskets. Saying it only covers primitive rifles (compared to modern tech) would still be inaccurate, but slightly less so. Under a reasonable interpretation, whether one supports the 2nd Amendment or not, "Arms" covers (at least) anything an individual U.S. soldier might use in war; this includes full-auto weapons, suppressors, night-vision goggles, body armor, grenades.[1] [1]: If we were shipping items to a foreign country to help them in war, would a news editor be comfortable using the term "Arms" in the headline? If so, the 2A probably protects its ownership by American citizens.
- mullen 7y ago
  Not even close. What we would call modern rifles were not invented until 1890's, with semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 and not widely available until the 1930's. The minie ball was not invented until 1830's and did not see wide use until the American Civil war and after in the 1860's. The Founding Fathers were working with muskets and only muskets, they never imagined that the average person could own a AR15 (M4).
  - calibas 7y ago
    Wikipedia says rifles were used during the Revolutionary War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview They were more accurate than muskets, but slower loading, so muskets were preferred.
  - sigzero 7y ago
    Yeah, because they were totally oblivious to "invention". They knew exactly what "arms" meant and it wasn't a static term.
  - bacondude3 7y ago
    > semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing... > In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds [...] Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world.
    - mullen 7y ago
      > Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.... I should have been more clear. I meant Machine Guns that a regular person could carry and fire without setting up a stand. Maxim and Browning had demonstrated Machine Guns around 1880 to 1900, but they were big and heavy and not something a single individual would carry and they clearly were not for the civilian market. > 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. The evidence that these guns existed is scant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock The 4 bullets pistols are the only example they have and that idea is an old and well known one. > Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world. You are looking at this with 21st century eyes where every 10 years the world changes so much. The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588. The food and clothes were different and not much else. To say that the Founding Fathers could have imagined a AR15 or AK47 is real stretch of the imagination. I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  “Bear arms” is old fashioned jargon for “serve in a military.” This is extremely well documented. It has nothing to do with carrying a gun, except metaphorically. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    I do think we should replace the 2nd Amendment with this clarification: > Because a well disciplined military is necessary for democracy, the right to join and serve in the military shall not be infringed. Same meaning as the original, but no bullshit about AR-15 and atom bombs or whatever.
    - bacondude3 7y ago
      The same two questions I asked the parent comment: * You can read the Bill of Rights for yourself and see that all 10 Amendments are to protect the citizens from the government abusing its power against them. Why would the 2A be the only Amendment to grant the government a right? * Why does the government/military need a right to own arms? Of course the government can own arms, that's part of it's job. The 2A was created to preserve that right for the people so the government could never take it away. I'm not trying to shout my "talking points" online. I really would appreciate answers to these questions, since I don't see how you can justify your opinion. (Also, to nitpick your suggested alteration: The BoR is about God-given rights that nobody can take away without just cause. That means, for example, that I can say whatever I want no matter how hateful it may be. I don't have a right to join an organized force however, especially one that necessarily has restrictions on membership - fitness, intelligence - so using your suggested text instead would be problematic)
      - earthboundkid 7y ago
        The Second Amendment was based on a provision of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. In the English Reformation, Protestant and Catholic mobs would periodically attack one another. At one point, James II disarmed the Protestant mobs. This proved unpopular, so the English Bill of Rights makes the following provisions: > [whereas] …By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; > > […therefore] That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; > > That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; The defense was collective (and legally regulated!), not individual. The part about the standing army is worth noting as well. The police weren't invented until 1829 century by Robert "Bobby" Peele. So how did they stop crime? Sherifs would round up a posse as needed, towns would have night watchmen, and areas would have militias. A standing army was a centralized military that was controlled by the king instead of by local forces. In the US, standing armies were super unpopular, but Washington and others recognized that practically speaking, you can't win a war with a militia (the equivalent of a police department). The founders said negative things about standing armies but couldn't bring themselves to ban them. In the American context, there were two particular cases people worried about that the Second Amendment was meant to address, besides just having a non-federal military. First, in border territories with Native Americans, every eligible white male would be drafted into the militia. If the Federal government wanted to cede some territory to the Indians against the wishes of the residents (ala Israeli settlers in Gaza), it could just make a law to disband the militia. This would effectively cede the territory because they wouldn't be able to prevent raiding. Not a likely move by the federal government, but possible and something to prevent. Second, in slave territories, every eligible white male would be drafted into the slave patrol. If the Federal government wanted to force the end of slavery, it could just disband the slave patrols and the specter of slave revolts would make the continuation of slavery impossible. This was a real possibility and one that slavery supporters wanted to cut off. So, is the second amendment an individual right or a collective right? It is an individual right to participate in the armed forces. Why does such a right matter? Look at Hong Kong right now. So far, only the local police are involved. In Shenzhen, just across the water, there are enormous numbers of PLA troops hanging around and doing "exercises" but so far only the local police have been involved in the protest clashes. To win a revolution requires the organized people with guns to decide to go with the masses rather than their political leaders, and that requires the armed forces to be composed of and identity with the people. The HK police have already begun to turn against HKers. The PLA does not give one single crap about HK and if they come in, they will smash the city to the ground. The only way to prevent tyranny in the US is for the armed forces to think of themselves as "Americans" and not "The President's Army". To the extent that we have crime problems in cities, it is because the people who are shooting and get shot don't trust the police to solve their problems, so they do it themselves. There must be unity between the masses and the people with guns for there to be democracy. That was the goal of the second amendment.
- he_the_great 7y ago
  It is also important to note that the firearm, while not as powerful, could be just as deadly with the limited medical knowledge, speed of transportation. It would be a little hard to identify a good parallel.
jakeogh 7y ago
The opinions in Heller are worth listening to: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

I've got an issue with this one about muskets. https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/issues/5 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/issues/5

bacondude3 7y ago

Among other problems with the sentiment you expressed, it should be clear to anyone that the 2A has always been intended to cover far more than just muskets. At the time the 2nd Amendment was created, rifles were already in popular use and were vastly superior to muskets since they could be shot far more accurately and were able to be reloaded faster than muskets. Saying it only covers primitive rifles (compared to modern tech) would still be inaccurate, but slightly less so. Under a reasonable interpretation, whether one supports the 2nd Amendment or not, "Arms" covers (at least) anything an individual U.S. soldier might use in war; this includes full-auto weapons, suppressors, night-vision goggles, body armor, grenades.[1] [1]: If we were shipping items to a foreign country to help them in war, would a news editor be comfortable using the term "Arms" in the headline? If so, the 2A probably protects its ownership by American citizens.

mullen 7y ago
Not even close. What we would call modern rifles were not invented until 1890's, with semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 and not widely available until the 1930's. The minie ball was not invented until 1830's and did not see wide use until the American Civil war and after in the 1860's. The Founding Fathers were working with muskets and only muskets, they never imagined that the average person could own a AR15 (M4).
- calibas 7y ago
  Wikipedia says rifles were used during the Revolutionary War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview They were more accurate than muskets, but slower loading, so muskets were preferred.
- sigzero 7y ago
  Yeah, because they were totally oblivious to "invention". They knew exactly what "arms" meant and it wasn't a static term.
- bacondude3 7y ago
  > semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing... > In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds [...] Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world.
  - mullen 7y ago
    > Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.... I should have been more clear. I meant Machine Guns that a regular person could carry and fire without setting up a stand. Maxim and Browning had demonstrated Machine Guns around 1880 to 1900, but they were big and heavy and not something a single individual would carry and they clearly were not for the civilian market. > 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. The evidence that these guns existed is scant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock The 4 bullets pistols are the only example they have and that idea is an old and well known one. > Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world. You are looking at this with 21st century eyes where every 10 years the world changes so much. The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588. The food and clothes were different and not much else. To say that the Founding Fathers could have imagined a AR15 or AK47 is real stretch of the imagination. I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear.
earthboundkid 7y ago
“Bear arms” is old fashioned jargon for “serve in a military.” This is extremely well documented. It has nothing to do with carrying a gun, except metaphorically. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  I do think we should replace the 2nd Amendment with this clarification: > Because a well disciplined military is necessary for democracy, the right to join and serve in the military shall not be infringed. Same meaning as the original, but no bullshit about AR-15 and atom bombs or whatever.
  - bacondude3 7y ago
    The same two questions I asked the parent comment: * You can read the Bill of Rights for yourself and see that all 10 Amendments are to protect the citizens from the government abusing its power against them. Why would the 2A be the only Amendment to grant the government a right? * Why does the government/military need a right to own arms? Of course the government can own arms, that's part of it's job. The 2A was created to preserve that right for the people so the government could never take it away. I'm not trying to shout my "talking points" online. I really would appreciate answers to these questions, since I don't see how you can justify your opinion. (Also, to nitpick your suggested alteration: The BoR is about God-given rights that nobody can take away without just cause. That means, for example, that I can say whatever I want no matter how hateful it may be. I don't have a right to join an organized force however, especially one that necessarily has restrictions on membership - fitness, intelligence - so using your suggested text instead would be problematic)
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      The Second Amendment was based on a provision of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. In the English Reformation, Protestant and Catholic mobs would periodically attack one another. At one point, James II disarmed the Protestant mobs. This proved unpopular, so the English Bill of Rights makes the following provisions: > [whereas] …By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; > > […therefore] That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; > > That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; The defense was collective (and legally regulated!), not individual. The part about the standing army is worth noting as well. The police weren't invented until 1829 century by Robert "Bobby" Peele. So how did they stop crime? Sherifs would round up a posse as needed, towns would have night watchmen, and areas would have militias. A standing army was a centralized military that was controlled by the king instead of by local forces. In the US, standing armies were super unpopular, but Washington and others recognized that practically speaking, you can't win a war with a militia (the equivalent of a police department). The founders said negative things about standing armies but couldn't bring themselves to ban them. In the American context, there were two particular cases people worried about that the Second Amendment was meant to address, besides just having a non-federal military. First, in border territories with Native Americans, every eligible white male would be drafted into the militia. If the Federal government wanted to cede some territory to the Indians against the wishes of the residents (ala Israeli settlers in Gaza), it could just make a law to disband the militia. This would effectively cede the territory because they wouldn't be able to prevent raiding. Not a likely move by the federal government, but possible and something to prevent. Second, in slave territories, every eligible white male would be drafted into the slave patrol. If the Federal government wanted to force the end of slavery, it could just disband the slave patrols and the specter of slave revolts would make the continuation of slavery impossible. This was a real possibility and one that slavery supporters wanted to cut off. So, is the second amendment an individual right or a collective right? It is an individual right to participate in the armed forces. Why does such a right matter? Look at Hong Kong right now. So far, only the local police are involved. In Shenzhen, just across the water, there are enormous numbers of PLA troops hanging around and doing "exercises" but so far only the local police have been involved in the protest clashes. To win a revolution requires the organized people with guns to decide to go with the masses rather than their political leaders, and that requires the armed forces to be composed of and identity with the people. The HK police have already begun to turn against HKers. The PLA does not give one single crap about HK and if they come in, they will smash the city to the ground. The only way to prevent tyranny in the US is for the armed forces to think of themselves as "Americans" and not "The President's Army". To the extent that we have crime problems in cities, it is because the people who are shooting and get shot don't trust the police to solve their problems, so they do it themselves. There must be unity between the masses and the people with guns for there to be democracy. That was the goal of the second amendment.
he_the_great 7y ago
It is also important to note that the firearm, while not as powerful, could be just as deadly with the limited medical knowledge, speed of transportation. It would be a little hard to identify a good parallel.

jakeogh 7y ago

The opinions in Heller are worth listening to: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...