6 ms·

That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was

That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive. If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias? Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.

AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
The State Guards are the militias For example the Texas Guard: https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
- esseph 9mo ago
  Incorrect, that would be the: https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard ;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only. However TX considers it more complicated than that: The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
  - AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
    Pretty sure we used the same link and you’re explaining it as though I’m wrong Smdh
    - esseph 9mo ago
      Yours goes to the Texas Army National Guard page. Mine goes to the TXSG (Texas State Guard)
      - AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
        The root subdomain is for the Texas state guard…
        esseph 9mo ago
        Tmd = Texas Military Department
Terr_ 9mo ago
When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures. On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
- bee_rider 9mo ago
  We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.
  - Terr_ 9mo ago
    I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
    - 15155 9mo ago
      The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
      - Terr_ 9mo ago
        Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time. That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
potato3732842 9mo ago
> where are the well regulated militias? They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
- plagiarist 9mo ago
  This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
  - potato3732842 9mo ago
    It was mostly a joke, since these sorts of groups have always, like going back 40+yr, been magnets for law enforcement who always seem to push them to do illegal things. Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.
aeonik 9mo ago
When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy. They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons. They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization. They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed. I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.
- a123b456c 9mo ago
  claims like these require a source
  - aeonik 9mo ago
    Source for what? That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes? Or sources that Privateers were a thing?
- thephyber 9mo ago
  Tanks for all! /s The founding fathers denied the right to bare arms to Catholics (and I’d wager lots of other religions), Native Americans, slaves (unless their owners explicitly allowed them), and we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas. Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right. We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
  - 15155 9mo ago
    > Tanks for all! "Tanks" as a vehicle aren't regulated whatsoever - their main cannon is a destructive device which carries its own set of regulations, but you can absolutely own a tank (sans main gun) with zero paperwork. Privateers sunk over 600 British vessels during the Revolution - do you think they needed permits for their cannonry? Or that the Founders somehow didn't know this was happening? > Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right. Tell me what United States v Miller was about then? Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly? > we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas. Federalist #46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." This "collective right" idea is completely bogus and flies in the face of countless historical writings, accounts, etc. The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?
gruez 9mo ago
>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
- uoaei 9mo ago
  You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation.

AndrewKemendo 9mo ago

The State Guards are the militias For example the Texas Guard: https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer

esseph 9mo ago
Incorrect, that would be the: https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard ;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only. However TX considers it more complicated than that: The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
- AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
  Pretty sure we used the same link and you’re explaining it as though I’m wrong Smdh
  - esseph 9mo ago
    Yours goes to the Texas Army National Guard page. Mine goes to the TXSG (Texas State Guard)
    - AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
      The root subdomain is for the Texas state guard…
      - esseph 9mo ago
        Tmd = Texas Military Department

Terr_ 9mo ago

When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures. On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.

bee_rider 9mo ago
We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.
- Terr_ 9mo ago
  I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
  - 15155 9mo ago
    The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
    - Terr_ 9mo ago
      Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time. That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.

potato3732842 9mo ago

> where are the well regulated militias? They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".

plagiarist 9mo ago
This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
- potato3732842 9mo ago
  It was mostly a joke, since these sorts of groups have always, like going back 40+yr, been magnets for law enforcement who always seem to push them to do illegal things. Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.

aeonik 9mo ago

When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy. They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons. They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization. They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed. I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.

a123b456c 9mo ago
claims like these require a source
- aeonik 9mo ago
  Source for what? That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes? Or sources that Privateers were a thing?
thephyber 9mo ago
Tanks for all! /s The founding fathers denied the right to bare arms to Catholics (and I’d wager lots of other religions), Native Americans, slaves (unless their owners explicitly allowed them), and we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas. Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right. We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
- 15155 9mo ago
  > Tanks for all! "Tanks" as a vehicle aren't regulated whatsoever - their main cannon is a destructive device which carries its own set of regulations, but you can absolutely own a tank (sans main gun) with zero paperwork. Privateers sunk over 600 British vessels during the Revolution - do you think they needed permits for their cannonry? Or that the Founders somehow didn't know this was happening? > Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right. Tell me what United States v Miller was about then? Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly? > we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas. Federalist #46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." This "collective right" idea is completely bogus and flies in the face of countless historical writings, accounts, etc. The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?

gruez 9mo ago

>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.

uoaei 9mo ago
You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation.