3 ms·

Took me 10 seconds on Google: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/29/joe-biden/joe-bidens-dubious-claim-about-revolutionary-war-c/ https://www.politi

• ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Took me 10 seconds on Google... Finding an article that says, essentially, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and then goes on to talk about government licensed privateers - akin to the modern setup of a security guard licensed to carry in a state that doesn't otherwise permit it. Is there evidence outside of that of personal home ownership of cannons? (Let alone of a widespread nature?) Do we think Sam Adams would advocate personal ownership of nuclear bombs, or do we think he'd perhaps see such things as a category slightly different than the muskets of his time?
  • pc86 2y ago
    We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownership is. We don't have private ownership of nuclear arms now and pointing there is IMO another explicitly bad faith argument, in part because it's clear you don't particularly care what the founders' intentions were because there are thousands of pages of discussions and arguments showing that regular every-day people were allowed to - encouraged to, in cases required to - own weapons on par or better than military armaments of the day. And despite that, my guess is you have a problem with people owning or carrying AR-15s, or with people carrying handguns on them when they go to a restaurant, etc. I'm happy to be proven wrong though! The start of this little digression was private citizens carrying their personally owned handguns outside of their home as is plainly meant by the word "bear" in 2A. So rather than moving the goalposts to Sam Adams's opinion on private ownership of nuclear weapons or whatever other bad faith things you want to bring up, I'd rather focus on that.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      > We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownership is. "Nothing like machine guns exist, let alone in private hands, let alone widely so" is part of that historical context, yes. > We don't have private ownership of nuclear arms now... As the apocryphal Churchill quote about whores goes, "We've already established that [some arms don't fall under the 2nd]; we're merely haggling over [which]..."
      • pc86 2y ago
        Puckle guns existed about 60 years before the revolution and you could absolutely own them privately and they were developed by a private citizen, although they're closer to a Gatling gun than a machine gun. If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right?
        • ceejayoz 2y ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun > its operation does not match the modern use of the term... It was never used during any combat operation or war... Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns... I'm not sure this works any better than the privateers example. > If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right? It has exactly the same sorts of widely-supported exceptions. I can't exercise my freedom of speech via threats, fraudulent claims, false advertising, lying to a FBI agent, etc. I can, and should be, arrested for such things. (I also like to think modern social media and its societal impact would give the Founders some pause.)
          • pc86 2y ago
  • hiatus 2y ago
    > Is there evidence outside of that of personal home ownership of cannons? Is there evidence of a law against the personal ownership of cannons?
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      There was no law about revenge porn, either, until it became a societal issue. Most things we ban or regulate when they become a problem. The Founding Fathers existed in a time where gun control was “they are big, heavy, and don’t shoot very fast”. That they did not anticipate a Glock with a 100 round drum is fairly understandable.
      • hiatus 2y ago
        You said people couldn't own cannons. There doesn't seem to have been a law against cannon ownership. You're now moving the goal posts.