4 ms·

I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. I think the ultimate issue, though, was that

I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. I think the ultimate issue, though, was that after the civil war, looking at what our founding fathers intended and what our country actually wanted to do became a less valid strategy. We fought for more federal control and got it. In doing so, the idea that we would still enshrine our rights to fight back against the government seems less consistent. After the sharp escalation in military technology from the 1950s onward, it seems even less relevant, since not only have our own citizens paid taxes to, fought in wars for, and voted for our government, but our global position has been one of strength through our government. Our right to own guns to fight our government is anachronistic and laughable. All other uses for firearms do not demand high capacity magazines.

bifrost 6y ago
Thats preposterous, we don't allow the 1st amendment to only apply to printing presses or hand made leaflets/books. The founders were also aware of things like the puckle gun and multi-barreled weapons systems, all of which could be owned by civilians. There are a lot of reasons why you'd need a standard capacity magazine but the most important reason is "its not the business of the government to unconstitutionally deprive its citizens of their rights".
- jwhitlark 6y ago
  I think (perhaps) a better comparison is we don't allow people to shout fire in a crowded theater. Every right has some limitations, otherwise laws and government are irrelevant.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    Thats been a horrible analogy forever. https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... If restricting magazine size had any benefit for law enforcement you might have a point, but it doesn't.
  - freen 6y ago
    I personally feel like my second amendment rights are infringed by the government outlawing access to surface to air missiles, bazookas, and thermonuclear weapons. The line has been drawn, we are just arguing over where.
    - bifrost 6y ago
      People joke about this a lot. Several of these things can actually be purchased illegally, non-trivially, but yet they're never used for crime. You can buy grenades, grenade launchers, cannons/etc with a "permit" from the government - they're never used in crime. And to those who've passed a few physics classes...
      - jwhitlark 6y ago
        Rarely used in a crime. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/06/motorbike-gang-member-arrested-for-anti-tank-missile-attack-on-office/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/06/motorbike-gang-member-...
        bifrost 6y ago
        Yes, very rarely. This is also in the Netherlands where the borders to countries involved in active war are fairly porous.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Another irrelevant but frequently-made point. If you maintain your own stash of nukes, you're effectively a state-level actor. Gun control laws no longer apply. Arms proliferation treaties, maybe, but not gun control.
irontinkerer 6y ago
> We fought for more federal control and got it. That's not a really accurate portrayal of events. Federalism may have increased as an outcome, but that was not why the war started, nor why the Union-aligned states continued to fight for several years despite losses
IdoRA 6y ago
> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. The Belton flintlock, a repeating rifle design, was presented in some form to the Continental Congress in 1777. The idea that the founders did not dream beyond single shot muskets is not supported by the historical record.
_iyig 6y ago
>Our right to own guns to fight our government is anachronistic and laughable. All other uses for firearms do not demand high capacity magazines. It's not always about resisting the government (though sometimes it is), and rarely if ever about resisting the federal government. For example: if and when civil unrest comes to your city, police will not help you. They will neither be willing nor able. Durning the 1992 L.A. Riots, Korean storeowners who defended their livelihoods with guns escaped the worst looting and burning. Those who did not defend their businesses lost everything. "L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later - Gun Store Manager David Joo Looks Back" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU Similar scenes have recently played out in Minneapolis and elsewhere: "After nights of violence in Minneapolis, locals take up arms to defend their community" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtLTPrB2MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtLTPrB2MA Looking further back, during the era of Jim Crow, the armed Deacons for Justice protected black Americans from the Klan and corrupt local law enforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic... Numerous similar examples may be found in American history.
Ancapistani 6y ago
> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. Others have mentioned the state of small arms development at the time, so I'll take a different approach. Elsewhere in the Constitution are provisions for the issuance of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". These basically commissioned private ships to serve on behalf of the US government and take enemy ships and cargoes on the high seas. For this provision to be usable at all, private ship owners must have been expected to have appropriate arms at their disposal - muskets, sure, but also swivel guns and cannon. If private individuals were expected to have access to ships armed with weapon able to bombard coastal towns and fortifications... how much sense would it make to believe that those same individuals shouldn't have access to effective small arms?

bifrost 6y ago

Thats preposterous, we don't allow the 1st amendment to only apply to printing presses or hand made leaflets/books. The founders were also aware of things like the puckle gun and multi-barreled weapons systems, all of which could be owned by civilians. There are a lot of reasons why you'd need a standard capacity magazine but the most important reason is "its not the business of the government to unconstitutionally deprive its citizens of their rights".

jwhitlark 6y ago
I think (perhaps) a better comparison is we don't allow people to shout fire in a crowded theater. Every right has some limitations, otherwise laws and government are irrelevant.
- bifrost 6y ago
  Thats been a horrible analogy forever. https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... If restricting magazine size had any benefit for law enforcement you might have a point, but it doesn't.
- freen 6y ago
  I personally feel like my second amendment rights are infringed by the government outlawing access to surface to air missiles, bazookas, and thermonuclear weapons. The line has been drawn, we are just arguing over where.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    People joke about this a lot. Several of these things can actually be purchased illegally, non-trivially, but yet they're never used for crime. You can buy grenades, grenade launchers, cannons/etc with a "permit" from the government - they're never used in crime. And to those who've passed a few physics classes...
    - jwhitlark 6y ago
      Rarely used in a crime. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/06/motorbike-gang-member-arrested-for-anti-tank-missile-attack-on-office/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/06/motorbike-gang-member-...
      - bifrost 6y ago
        Yes, very rarely. This is also in the Netherlands where the borders to countries involved in active war are fairly porous.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Another irrelevant but frequently-made point. If you maintain your own stash of nukes, you're effectively a state-level actor. Gun control laws no longer apply. Arms proliferation treaties, maybe, but not gun control.

irontinkerer 6y ago

> We fought for more federal control and got it. That's not a really accurate portrayal of events. Federalism may have increased as an outcome, but that was not why the war started, nor why the Union-aligned states continued to fight for several years despite losses

IdoRA 6y ago

> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. The Belton flintlock, a repeating rifle design, was presented in some form to the Continental Congress in 1777. The idea that the founders did not dream beyond single shot muskets is not supported by the historical record.

_iyig 6y ago

>Our right to own guns to fight our government is anachronistic and laughable. All other uses for firearms do not demand high capacity magazines. It's not always about resisting the government (though sometimes it is), and rarely if ever about resisting the federal government. For example: if and when civil unrest comes to your city, police will not help you. They will neither be willing nor able. Durning the 1992 L.A. Riots, Korean storeowners who defended their livelihoods with guns escaped the worst looting and burning. Those who did not defend their businesses lost everything. "L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later - Gun Store Manager David Joo Looks Back" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU Similar scenes have recently played out in Minneapolis and elsewhere: "After nights of violence in Minneapolis, locals take up arms to defend their community" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtLTPrB2MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtLTPrB2MA Looking further back, during the era of Jim Crow, the armed Deacons for Justice protected black Americans from the Klan and corrupt local law enforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic... Numerous similar examples may be found in American history.

Ancapistani 6y ago

> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. Others have mentioned the state of small arms development at the time, so I'll take a different approach. Elsewhere in the Constitution are provisions for the issuance of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". These basically commissioned private ships to serve on behalf of the US government and take enemy ships and cargoes on the high seas. For this provision to be usable at all, private ship owners must have been expected to have appropriate arms at their disposal - muskets, sure, but also swivel guns and cannon. If private individuals were expected to have access to ships armed with weapon able to bombard coastal towns and fortifications... how much sense would it make to believe that those same individuals shouldn't have access to effective small arms?