The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Founders were well aware of continuing advances in arms technology
Building on what had come before, the Madison-Monroe research program led the way to the many innovations of the 19th century
During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder flintlocks. By end of the century, semiautomatic pistols using detachable magazines with modern gunpowder and metallic cartridges were available. Would the Founders be surprised by the improvements in ability to exercise Second Amendment rights? Perhaps not, given the tremendous advances in firearms that had taken place before 1791. And certainly not, given that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, initiated a federal government industrial with the specific aim of vastly improving the quality and quantity of firearms manufacture.
Part I of this post briefly describes Some of the firearms advances before 1791. Part II describes the federal industrial policy for advancing firearms technology.
This post is based on my article The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900. It is forthcoming in Notre Dame's Journal of Legislation, vol. 50, no. 2, in 2024. The Post also draws on chapter 23 of my coauthored textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulations, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Pub., 3d ed. 2022).
I. Firearms improvements before 1791
While the Founders could not foresee all the specific advances that would take place in the nineteenth century, the Founders were well aware that firearms were getting better and better.
Tremendous improvements in firearms had always been part of the American experience. The first European settlers in America had mainly owned matchlocks. When the trigger is pressed, a smoldering hemp cord is lowered to the firing pan; the powder in the pan then ignites the main gunpowder charge in the barrel.
The first firearm more reliable than the matchlock was the wheel lock, invented by Leonardo da Vinci. In a wheel lock, the powder in the firing pan is ignited when a serrated wheel strikes a piece of iron pyrite. The wheel lock was the first firearm that could be kept loaded and ready for use in a sudden emergency. Although matchlock pistols had existed, the wheel lock made pistols far more practical and common. Paul Lockhart, Firepower: How Weapons Shaped Warfare 80 (2021).
The wheel lock was the "preferred firearm for cavalry" in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Id. The proliferation of wheel locks in Europe in the sixteenth century coincided with the homicide rate falling by half. See Carlisle E. Moody, Firearms and the Decline of Violence in Europe: 1200-2010, 9 Rev. Eur. Stud. 53 (2017)
However, wheel locks cost about four times as much as matchlock. Moreover, their moving parts were far more complicated than the matchlocks'. Under conditions of hard use in North America, wheel locks were too delicate and too difficult to repair. The path of technological advancement often involves expensive inventions eventually leading to products that are affordable to average consumers and are even better than the original invention. That has been the story of firearms in America.
Flintlocks quintuple the rate of fire
The gun that was even better than the wheel lock, but simpler and less expensive, was the flintlock. The earliest versions of flintlocks had appeared in the mid-sixteenth century. But not until the end of the seventeenth century did most European armies replace their matchlocks with flintlocks. Americans, individually, made the transition much sooner. Lockhart at 106.
Indian warfare in the thick woods of the Atlantic seaboard was based on ambush, quick raids, and fast individual decision-making in combat—the opposite of the more orderly battles and sieges of European warfare. In America, the flintlock became a necessity.
Unlike matchlocks, flintlocks can be kept always ready. Because blackpowder is hygroscopic, and could be ruined by much water, it was common to store a firearm on the mantel above the fireplace. Another advantage, which mattered greatly in America but was mostly irrelevant for European warfare, is that a flintlock, unlike a matchlock, has s no smoldering hemp cord to give away the location of the user. Flintlocks are more reliable than matchlocks—all the more so in adverse weather, although still far from impervious to rain and moisture. Significantly, Flintlocks are much simpler and faster to reload than matchlocks. See, e.g., W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development 66-67 (9th ed. 1910); Charles C. Carlton, This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles 1585-1746, at 171-73 (2011).
Initially, the flintlock could not shoot further or more accurately than a matchlock. Lockhart at 105. But it could shoot much more rapidly. A matchlock takes more than a minute to reload once. Id. at 107. In experienced hands, a flintlock could be fired and reloaded five times in a minute, although under the stress of combat, three times a minute was a more typical rate. Id. at 107-08. Compared to a matchlock, a flintlock was more likely to ignite the gunpowder charge instantaneously, rather than with a delay of some seconds. Id. at 104. "The flintlock gave infantry the ability to generate an overwhelmingly higher level of firepower." Id. at 107.
The Theoretical Lethality Index (TLI) is a measure of a weapon's effectiveness in military combat. The TLI of a seventeenth century musket is 19 and the TLI of an eighteenth century flintlock is 43. Trevor Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare 92 (1984). So the transition of firearm type in the American colonies more than doubled the TLI. There is no reason to believe that the American Founders were ignorant of how much better their own firearms were compared to those of the early colonists.
Joseph Belton's 16-shot model
In 1777 in Philadelphia, inventor Joseph Belton demonstrated a firearm that could fire 16 shots all at once. The committee watching the demonstration included General Horatio Gates, General Benedict Arnold, and scientist David Rittenhouse. They wrote to the Continental Congress and urged the adoption of Belton guns for the Continental Army. Congress voted to order a hundred--while requesting that they be produced as 8-shot models, since gunpowder was scarce. However, the deal fell through because Congress could not afford the high price that Belton demanded. Repeating arms were expensive, because their small internal components require especially complex and precise fitting.
Hence, the Founders who served in the Second Continental Congress were well aware that a 16-shot gun had been produced, and was possible to produce in quantity, for a high price. Delegates to the 1777 Continental Congress included future Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, the two Charles Carrolls from Maryland, John Witherspoon (President of Princeton, the great American college for free thought), Benjamin Harrison (father and grandfather of two Presidents), Francis Lightfoot Lee, and Richard Henry Lee .
The Girardoni rifle
Likewise, the 22-shot Girardoni rifle famously carried by the Lewis & Clark expedition starting in 1803 was no secret, as it had been invented in 1779. It was used by the Austrian army as a sniper rifle. Powered by compressed air, its bullet his as hard as the modern Colt .45ACP cartridge. John Paul Jarvis, The Girandoni Air Rifle: Deadly Under Pressure, Guns.com, Mar. 15, 2011.
The Girardoni had a 21 or 22 round caliber tubular magazine, and could be quickly reloaded with 20 more rounds, using speedloading tubes that came with the gun. After about 40 shots, the air reservoir could be exhausted, and would need to be pumped up again.
Repeaters in ordinary commerce
As of 1785, South Carolina gunsmith James Ransier of Charleston, South Carolina, was advertising four-shot repeaters for sale. Columbian Herald (Charleston), Oct. 26, 1785.
The American Rifle
The founding generation was especially aware of one of the most common firearms of their time, the Pennsylvania-Kentucky rifle, which is also called "The American Rifle." The rifle was invented by German and Swiss gunsmith immigrants in the early eighteenth century. When they came to Pennsylvania for religious freedom, they were familiar with the heavy Jaeger rifles of Central Europe.
The American Rifle was created initially for the needs of frontiersmen who might spend months on a hunting expedition in the dense American woods. "What Americans demanded of their gunsmiths seemed impossible": a rifle that weighed ten pounds or less, for which a month of ammunition would weigh one to three pounds, "with proportionately small quantities of powder, be easy to load," and "with such velocity and flat trajectories that one fixed rear sight would serve as well at fifty yards as at three hundred, the necessary but slight difference in elevation being supplied by the user's experience." Robert Held, The Age of Firearms: A Pictorial History 142 (1956). "By about 1735 the impossible had taken shape" with the creation of the iconic American Rifle. Id.
As for the most common American firearm, the smoothbore (nonrifled) flintlock musket, there had also been great advances. To a casual observer, a basic flintlock musket of 1790 looks very similar to flintlock musket of 1690. However, improvements in small parts, some of them internal, had made the best flintlocks far superior to their ancestors. For example, thanks to English gunsmith Henry Nock's 1787 patented flintlock breech, "the gun shot so hard and so fast that the very possibility of such performance had hitherto not even been imaginable." Id. at 137.
The Founders were well aware that what had been impossible or unimaginable to one generation could become commonplace in the next. With the federal armories advanced research and development program that began in the Madison administration, the U.S. government did its best to make the impossible possible.
II. James Madison and James Monroe, the founding fathers of modern firearms
U.S. Representative James Madison is well-known as the author of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. What is not well-known is how his presidency put the United States on the path to mass production of high-quality affordable firearms.
Because of weapons procurement problems during the War of 1812, President Madison's Secretary of War James Monroe, who would succeed Madison as President, proposed a program for advanced weapons research and production at the federal armories, which were located in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Harpers Ferry, Virginia. The Madison-Monroe program was to subsidize technological innovation. Ross Thomson, Structures of Change in the Mechanical Age: Technological Innovation in the United States 1790-1865, at 54-59 (2009). It was enthusiastically adopted with the support of both the major parties in Congress: the Madison-Monroe Democratic-Republicans, and the opposition Federalists. 8 Stat. 204 (1815); Johnson, Kopel, Mocsary, Wallace & Kilmer, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 2209 (3d ed. 2022) (online chapter 23).
While serving as ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson had observed the progress that the French were making in producing firearms with interchangeable parts. He enthusiastically recommended that the United States do the same. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Jay (Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Confederation government), Aug. 30, 1785, in 1 Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers, of Thomas Jefferson 299 (Thomas Jefferson Randolph ed., 1829). In 1801, President Jefferson recounted his French observations to Virginia Governor James Monroe and expressed hope for Eli Whitney's plan for interchangeable gun parts. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, Nov. 14, 1801, in 35 The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson 662 (Barbara B. Oberg ed., 2008).
Under the bipartisan Madison-Monroe program, generous federal arms procurement contracts had long lead times and made much of the payment up-front, so that manufacturers could spend several years setting up and perfecting their factories. The program succeeded beyond expectations, and helped to create the American industrial revolution.
The initial objective was interchangeability, so that firearms parts damaged in combat could be replaced by functional spare parts. After that would come higher rates of factory production. And after that, it was hoped, production at lower cost than artisanal production. Achieving these objectives for the more intricate and closer-fitting parts of repeating firearms would be even more difficult.
To carry out the federal program, the inventors associated with the federal armories first had to invent machine tools. Consider for example, the wooden stock of a long gun. The back of the stock is held against the user's shoulder. The middle of the stock is where the action is attached. (The action is the part of the gun containing the moving parts that fire the ammunition; the Founding generation called it "the lock.") For many guns, the forward part of the stock would contain a groove to hold the barrel.
Making a stock requires many different cuts of wood, few of them straight. The
artisanal gunmaker would cut with hand tools such as saws and chisels. Necessarily, one artisanal stock would not be precisely the same size as another.
To make stocks faster and more uniformly, Thomas Blanchard invented fourteen different machine tools. Each machine would be set up for one particular cut. As the stock was cut, it would be moved from machine to machine. By mounting the stock to the machine tools with jigs and fixtures, a manufacturer could ensure that each stock would be placed in precisely the same position in the machine as the previous stock. The mounting was in relation to a bearing — a particular place on the stock that was used as a reference point. To check that the various parts of the firearm, and the machine tools themselves, were consistent, many new gauges were invented. Felicia Johnson Deyrup, Arms Makers of the Connecticut Valley: A Regional Study of the Economic Development of the Small Arms Industry, 1798-1870, at 97-98 (1948); Thomson at 56–57.
What Blanchard did for stocks, John H. Hall, of the Harpers Ferry Armory, did for
other firearms parts. Hall shipped some of his machine tools to Simeon North, in Connecticut. In 1834, Hall and North made interchangeable firearms. This was the first time that geographically separate factories had made interchangeable parts. Id. at 58; Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change 212 (1977).
Because Hall "established the efficacy" of machine tools, he "bolstered the confidence among arms makers that one day they would achieve in a larger, more efficient manner, what he had done on a limited scale. In this sense, Hall's work represented an important extension of the industrial revolution in America, a mechanical synthesis so different in degree as to constitute a difference in kind." Id. at 249.
The technological advances from the federal armories were widely shared among American manufacturers. The Springfield Armory built up a large network of cooperating private entrepreneurs and insisted that advances in manufacturing techniques be widely shared. By mid-century, what had begun as the mass production of firearms from interchangeable parts had become globally known as "the American system of manufacture"—a system that encompassed sewing machines, and, eventually typewriters, bicycles, and automobiles. See, e.g., David R. Meyer, Networked Machinists: High-Technology Industries In Antebellum America 81-84, 252-62, 279-80 (2006).
Springfield, in western Massachusetts on the Connecticut River, had been chosen for the federal armory in part because of its abundance of waterpower and for the nearby iron ore mines. Many private entrepreneurs, including Colt and Smith & Wesson, made the same choice. The Connecticut River Valley became known as the Gun Valley. It was the Silicon Valley of its times, the center of industrial revolution. Id. at 73–103, 229–80.
In short, the Founding generation was familiar with tremendous advances in firearms technology. In the American colonial experience, the rate of fire for an ordinary firearm had quintupled. As of 1791, repeating firearms capable of firing 16 or 22 shots had been demonstrated, but they were much too expensive for ordinary citizens. The Madison-Monroe administration's wise industrial policy, continued under future administrations, led the way towards the mass production of high quality firearms at low prices. No one in 1791 or 1815 could have foreseen all the firearms innovations in the 19th century. We do know that the American federal government did all it could to make those innovations possible.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Founders were also aware of sociological progress. Seems the 'all fundamental rights must have been recognized in 1790' may be some collateral damage if you want to make the 2A ever expansive.
Or, you know, include some non-originalist arguments and you don't have this weird tension to deal with.
Yea - right
Like the freedom of the press only applies to those who own a printing press
You get a 2A that update with the times, or a 9A that only recognizes rights as they existed when the Constitution was ratified.
Otherwise you need to justify your inconsistency.
Sacastro - I was just pointing out your inconsistency
? Is this a Joe-Tom sock puppet fail?
What's updating and expansive about the conservative take on 2A?
I don't get it.
It's an update if you pretend that the half century between the start of federal gun control, and the Court finally enforcing it, represents some kind of legitimate original meaning, rather than just deliberate neglect.
Really, Heller is kind of like Brown, in taking a neglected amendment the judiciary had no use for, and reviving it.
I think you need to study English more, because the text of the Ninth seems to rule out your fantastical expanding constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And of course there is one other major constitutional flaw in your living constitutional originalism, what would be the process for recognizing these new rights? Judges can't create law out of thin air, or at least they aren't any good at it, Qualified Immunity is a good example of judge made rights if we did leave the expanding the constitution up to the judges. Congress does have authority to create new rights, and does so regularly, look at the civil rights act, the voting rights act, they also make big messes doing it like Title IX.
Presidents make a mess of expanding rights too, I don't think anyone would look at the history of executive orders as they way to go about recognizing new rights, that's how we got the "right for Japanese-Americans to live in internment camps".
The process that has worked.the best for recognizing new rights is the ratification of NE amendments, like the right for women to vote, and the ninth amendment itself.
Undirected does not mean uncabined. The Court has recognized new rights before and had ways to ensure they weren’t doing so lightly. See marriage. Or travel. Or parental rights. Or even privacy, though Griswold doesn’t do a great job, later cases even it out.
Rights retained by the people but unrecognized by the courts seem pretty anemic rights.
Parental rights wouldn't be a "new" right, it would be one of those 9th amendment retained rights, if the courts weren't allergic to using the 9th amendment.
Their contours sure are. What counts as parents, financial rights, what you don’t have the right to do to your kid…
The right had been modernized! How illegitimate!!
Freedom of speech — what you say, or write
Freedom of the press — the king can’t outlaw mass production and distribution of speech, which can and did happen for backdoor censorship
I don’t know about institutional press as a Thing, but I’m inclined to think anyone can fit that. If people wanna argue about how many people can go past the police tape to hassle Maria LaGuerta, or go into the White House press corps, I shan’t join that debate.
With you on all of that. Note that speech and press change as tech changes, just like the 2A.
Now do the 9A.
Glad you asked!
I am fine with the discovery of new personal rights that would not have been considered such back in the day. This is in keeping with the principle of it.
I am not fine with discovering new powers of government, sans amendment, that would not have been considered proper back in the day. This is in keeping with the exact same principle: stopping the powerful from growing their power at their whim.
Alas, while in the original conception of rights as being against government action, new rights aren't terribly problematic, in today's conception of rights as entitlements, expanding one person's rights shrinks the rights of those around them, because new rights turn into excuses for the government to coerce people.
For instance, a 'right' to SSM doesn't just implicate the government's discretion in who can get married, it ends up contracting the rights of wedding photographers and people who bake cakes.
The Founders enacted the 2nd Amendment despite knowing about the existence of inner city violent crime.
Philadelphia was known as the crime capital of the colonies.
The proposal, as I understand it, isn't to make the second amendment "ever expansive", but rather to give it the same scope that it had when it was ratified.
A scope that allows for modernization.
Just pointing out that this is in variance to the originalist take on the 9A.
Lots of ways around the conflict. But that would require nuance most originalists around here eschew.
Modernization of what?
The 2nd is hardly unique, the 5th has been vastly expanded with Miranda warnings, the 6th with the right to an attorney, the 4th is very analogous to the 2nd with each new surveillance technology folded.into the 4th however imperfectly.
Ironically the freedom of travel which is probably the most recognized Ninth Amendment right is in great danger, with proposals to curtail the most efficient mode of transportation, air travel, with onerous taxes specifically implemented to make it unaffordable. Those kinds of taxes for other goods and services that are necessary to exercise constitutional rights have been declared unconstitutional like printing press taxes or onerous bullet taxes.
I agree with you. Including about the right to travel.
Though the court has long held that there is no right to travel by air, I’ve always found that to be an unrealistic take.
Why do you insist on doing constitutional reasoning as though they didn't include Article V in the Constitution? If society evolved in a direction where people wanted more rights officially recognized in the law, they had the capacity to change the actual words of the law.
And did, repeatedly, until the 1970's. You might reflect on the fact that it wasn't Article V that changed then.
Why do you insist an amendment process exhausts all change in Constitutional adjudication??
Even originalists like Baude know that’s nonsense. Also see the OP here.
Because it's an excuse to pretend that his interpretation of the constitution is the one set in stone and the ones who don't agree should amend it if they don't think he's right.
You want to insist that you can import into the Constitution NEW rights, without going through the amendment process. And, why do you want this?
Because you know you don't actually have enough popular support for the new rights you want to constitutionalize against democratically enacted laws. So you want to circumvent actually having that vote, and render the democratic process futile by having judges impose what you can't win at the ballot box.
What you want to do is fundamentally illegitimate in a democracy. You want NEW rights? Hold a damned vote on it to prove you're not lying about societal evolution agreeing with you.
See? I was right lol.
Good lord you're like a windeup toy.
"You want to insist that you can import into the Constitution NEW firearms, without going through the amendment process. And, why do you want this?
Because you know you don’t actually have enough popular support for the new rights you want to constitutionalize against democratically enacted laws. So you want to circumvent actually having that vote, and render the democratic process futile by having judges impose what you can’t win at the ballot box.
What you want to do is fundamentally illegitimate in a democracy. You want NEW firearms? Hold a damned vote on it to prove you’re not lying about societal evolution agreeing with you."
Read anything by Will Baude. Democracy includes judicial review, which includes the common law process, which includes a Constitutional jurisprudence based on precedent, not just text.
The Founders were anti democracy. Prof. Baude is anti democracy.
Everyone but Brett is anti democracy.
You aren't even making a similar argument.
You - any many other gun grabbers - have claimed in the past that the Founders could not have imagined today's guns, and would not have written the 2nd Amendment to protect them if they could have.
This article is a rebuttal to the first clause of that claim.
You, on the other hand, are doing your usual vague hand-waving to pretend that your imagined version of originalism somehow cannot be compatible with the modern world due to unspecified "sociological progress". In other words, a typical Sarcastro Strawman.
Why don't you go ahead and spell out what you think the Founders could not have imagined socially?
As I’ve posted many times, I believe there is an individual right to self defense, and that means states have limits on the gun control policies they promulgate.
I’ve said nothing about what the founders could imagine. In fact, I agree with you that the Founders realized that firearms could grow and change.
I just note that this same rationale applies to other rights as well.
This post smuggles in a living Constitution under the guise of original intent and guns. It's great.
It... doesn't? Any more than claiming "speech" applies to broadcasts, or that "press" applies to handwriting and laser printers, would undermine originalism.
What it does is dispute the claims of gun grabbers that want to redefine "arms" in a way to limit the 2nd. That's an entirely different argument, and it has nothing to do with what you've claimed.
Look at the way he frames this discussion, as if his position has been the default one and we are the ones trying to change the meaning of the 2A.
If it’s intentional framing, that’s pretty clever rhetoric. But given who that is, I don’t think it’s some tactic. I believe his universe and reality are crafted and manipulated and he genuinely believes we’re coming along and trying to expand the 2A to include AR-15s, where they hadn’t been before.
If our Constitution includes an intent to continue to update according to 'continuing advances in X' (and I believe it does) you can't go a la carte.
Complain about gun grabbers all you want. But you'd better find another way to address their argument about modern guns, else you throw the modernizing all rights baby out with the modernizing firearms rights bathwater.
You're just repeating you fake "originalism" strawman.
Do you think that originalism would have allowed Congress to ban handwritten documents? They're not "speech" or "the press", so according to your imaginary strawman, originalists would argue that.
Your argument about "modern guns" doesn't even require originalism, much less your imaginary version. YOU are trying to redefine 'arms'. YOU are the one attempting to claim that the meaning of the term is somehow dependent on what you imagine some other people might have imagined it to include.
Please, give example of any other place where you think there is an "a la carte" case of "continuing advances in X". It'd be a lot easier to argue with you if you would actually make an argument rather than hint at vague imagined hypocrisies.
You keep mistaking which side I'm on, even after I've made myself very clear.
I'm not redefining arms, I think the OP is right. I'm applying that logic to the 9A.
Please, give example of any other place where you think there is an “a la carte” case of “continuing advances in X”.
The idea that the only rights the 9th Amendment refers to are those in operation when the Constitution was ratified.
Or, if I'm feeling feisty, I might say we should check which firearms are deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this country.
Why don’t you apply your logic to 1A.
Also your "rights" you're trying to advance are concepts. Not actual, physical manifestations.
You're literally saying since technology advances and is covered by "arms" in 2A and "press" in 1A, then we should be able to make up whatever new right we want, call it an advance and say it's covered by "rights" in 9A.
That's an absurd belief to hold.
That is not literally what I am saying, but you've never been very constrained by real life in what you believe.
That’s just your modernization argument in a nutshell.
You’re saying rights can be modernized and advance like weapons technology does. Then you say if you believe the 2A “expands” to cover arms advancements, then to be consistent you should also believe the 9A “expands” to cover rights advancements.
We can touch, see, feel and actually shoot firearm modernizations. It’s a physical, real thing and when every human sees it, they recognize it as a gun. It is a real objective thing. The physical reality is the single source of truth about the object called a gun.
Rights aren’t. Rights are subjective. They are a concept.
You can’t apply your paradigm from a real, objective, tangible thing, to a not-real, intangible, subjective thing. There is no single source of truth for rights. The "expansion" and "modernization" of rights is not a real thing. It's your personal opinion, or your tribe's opinion.
Rights are subjective. They are a concept.
Well, no wonder you're so fucked up.
Is the right to have the government pay for your contraception a subjective concept or is it a universal truth understood and accepted as a right by all?
If rights can from universal consensus they wouldn’t be needed.
Rights are real things. They are not made up for funzies, they are a vital part of how you protect individual liberty.
Not that you have ever been shown to care much for that, except maybe your own.
Which rights can you touch and feel like you can an AR-15?
I can’t believe you’re actually arguing rights are real physical things. And they particular rights are objective material things.
NOthing to deal with except Unalienable rights. Rights are by nature expansive, that is what makes them a right and not a time-limited government concession.I think what you are noticing is the lame argument that 'that was then and this is now"--- cocktail party talk, Best analog would be the 10 Commandments.
In 1988 bought a Mail Order Austrian Mannlicher M95 and the shorter Cavalry version (Guns built prior to 1898 could be purchased through the mail, I think they still can, not really still in the market for guns built before 1898)
At some point after WW1 they were re-calibered to 8mm x 56, which you could conveniently purchase with the rifles (total for 1000 rounds and 2 rifles was about $300 in 1988 money)
Rifles came coated with thick grease (Austrian version of "Cosmoline") and when cleaned up appeared brand new.
Ammo came in 4 round Stripper (not that kind) clips, about the same recoil as a 30: 06, don't shoot the Cavalry model unless you're into pain,
Love how Lee Harvey O's Mannlicher (different model) is always referred to as a "Cheap Mail Order" rifle, wasn't that cheap in 1963, just that LHO didn't have the Dinero for an M1 or Mauser, in 1963 it was only a 20 year old rifle,
OK, like Judge Cavenaugh, I like Guns, and Beer, and umm, Tobacco, its what the ATF's for.
Frank
One might rephrase the first line of this post, “During the 19th century, militias declined in relevance more than in any other century.” The two developments were congruent, and one went hand in hand with the other. In fact each caused the other.
Might you be suggesting that as “A well regulated militia” became irrelevant in the 19th century, so also did the “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”?
To quote Justice Joseph Story, from his Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution:
"The importance of this article [the 2nd Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people."
People need to be armed so they can serve in the militias, and militias are necessary because standing armies are against sound policy for a free people. But we have a standing army!?! RIP freedom....
Thanks. I hadn't read that in a while. Story accurately described the logic of the Second Amendment.
Sure. The argument is typically over the difference between "We are guaranteed this right because of the importance of militia." and "We are guaranteed this right so long as militia are important."
Grammatically, the preface of the 2nd amendment explains why the right was considered important to guarantee, but it doesn't render the right contingent on that justification being regarded as true.
At most, it clarifies the nature of the arms in question: Those suitable for militia use. It has no bearing on who enjoys the right, because the main clause of the 2nd amendment specifies that: The People.
Which, as the Court has reminded us, is a term of art with an established meaning, used multiple places in the Constitution to mean the same thing. And it doesn't mean, "members of the militia".
Last year's big movie hit was RRR, an over the top action movie, whose background intrigue was trying to get guns into the hands of Indians, so they could resist British rule. The Brits had outlawed Indians having guns so they could not resist.
The Brits drove cars. It was 1920.
The 2A is a federalism provision and Heller was wrongly decided…I’ve just stopped humoring them because any analysis derived from Heller/McDonald/Bruen is fruit from the poisonous tree. Do these people really believe the 2A was an amendment specifically for citizens in DC and federal territories??? Because that is the only way to read the 2A if it was an individual right at its inception.
The 14A changed things.
If you believe that then you believe the 2A was drafted specifically to protect the RKBA in DC and federal territories. So the other BoR amendments protected citizens in states from federal institutions like Congress and Federal Marshals and US Attorneys and Federal Judiciary. The 2A was an individual right at its inception and didn’t simply restrict the federal institutions that operated in the states. So Congress is not mentioned in the 2A like it is mentioned in the 1A. So if the 2A merely restricts Congress then it wouldn’t have been drafted as an individual right with a scope at the country level as the word “state” in the 2A refers to the USA and not the several states.
Two things incredibly wrong with your analysis 1) First 2A applies against the federal government in all States 2) 14A changed all the BoR against the Federal Government and all the states.
The last item is that the BoR was adopted by Congress on 10.2.1789 where as the district of columbia was created on 7.16.1790. Kinda hard to have 2A only apply in a district that did not exist
Then it wasn’t originally drafted as an individual right…it was drafted as a restriction on the federal government. So how do you explain the amendment asserting that in order for a country to be free the right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed…and yet the states were free infringe the RKBA?? So according to the drafters America wasn’t a free country??
The historical record shows it was incorporated as both an individual right for self defence and the right to form militias for the common defence
Why would the 2A refer to America as a country if the right was merely a restriction on the federal government??
The premise is that we are born with unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.
The BoR wasn’t about granting rights, but acknowledging them and protecting them from encroachment of the State.
In that sense they are all restrictions on the State. The shall not be infringed part is speaking to the State.
Which everyone agrees it didn’t do initially because states regulated arms.
In 1837 GA banned handguns.
SCOTUS threw it out.
So why has the Constitutional Carry movement been necessary?? States that held themselves out at pro-2A apparently believed they had the power to regulate handguns to the point they were essentially illegal outside the home.
Can a state ban a handgun? Why or why not?
"In 1837 GA banned handguns. / SCOTUS threw it out."
Indeed, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846). But SCOTUS is the fount of a lot of crappy rulings, and this appears to me to be one of those. The 2A says with absolute clarity that “CONGRESS shall make no law…” and how that can be twisted into a restriction on State legislatures, at least before the 14A, I cannot imagine.
“So why has the Constitutional Carry movement been necessary?”
Your I-am-a-moron act is way past tiresome.
The Constitutional Carry movement is necessary because so many of you and your ilk have no respect for the Constitution, in particular the part where it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
"The 2A says with absolute clarity that “CONGRESS shall make no law…”"
Either that was a joke, or you were way too sleepy to be typing anything.
One might rephrase the first line that way. One would be quite wrong to do so.
Agreed - militias were practically obsolete by the end of the 18th century, although I think it's clear that it took most of the American political class until the 19th century to appreciate that.
Britain banned Indians from having guns, as it made keeping their nation underfoot easier.
The fun movie RRR from last summer deals with this. It takes place in 1920.
This militia thing ends in 1799 is a red herring. The need for masses with guns to resist tyranny didn't evaporate.
For another example, actually contemporaneous, Ukraine was short on weapons, including rifles, when Russia invaded. It was among the first things they begged for.-
What caused the militia system to decline is that it actually worked as intended, and the people running the government found they didn't LIKE that.
One of the purposes of not having a standing army, but instead a militia system, was to discourage foreign adventures and optional wars. So when, in 1812, the federal government decided to invade Canada, they found to their horror that the militia were not terribly cooperative with the venture.
Well, they weren't supposed to be.
"congruent" is not the word you want. Maybe 'complementary' -- but in either case, not applicable. You will find that when tempted to say something like 'caused each other' that you are ignoring a common 3rd cause. When the sun gets hotter people garden more and flowers grow better, but the sun is the cause of both
I will.concede.the importance of militias is the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was included in the constitution. But once a right exists it exists for all purposes. The scope of the right is to keep and bear arms, and the exercise of that right shall not be infringed.
Bevis and Butthead were not the purpose of the 1st amendment, but there they are, constitutionally protected in all their glory.
“The Founders never anticipated the terrible destructive power of AR15-type assault weapons” goes the argument from gun control advocates. Liberals courts use that proposal to help rationalize skirting Bruen, but work from Kopel, Halbrook and others will challenge that supposition with more than speculation.
We have right to keep and carry arms…and it has nothing to do with the 2A and the states are free to liberally regulate arms as no right is absolute. Heller will go down via the Scalia Doctrine which states wrongly decided precedent should be attacked by state legislatures and municipalities and eventually overturned by the Supreme Court just like Roe.
States are no more free to liberally regulate arms than they are free to liberally search public housing projects.
https://archive.is/mgil3
False on data and illogical in argument. THe right to not wear a coat or wear a coat does not bring in to existence the right to do both at the same !!! Rights are absolute but because they are they involve colliding necessities. And the state rights to bear arms preceded the Federal and were LESS not more restrictive.
Article I, section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
"...the states are free to liberally regulate arms as no right is absolute."
That no right is absolute is no argument for "liberally regulating" it.
That a right is a RIGHT is instead an argument AGAINST "liberally regulating" it, obviously.
Imagine applying such standards to the other amendments. There would be no 1a over the internet, your car could be freely searched but there is no freedom leftists will not trample in their quest for power.
They have to. The only way they can implement their nefarious agenda is by disarming & silencing the population. Then they'll be able to run their utopian schemes (confiscation, redistribution, etc., etc.) unimpeded (for our own good, of course!). How enlightened!
The First Amendment is not under attack in the US.
I'll believe the First Amendment is under attack when I see proposals for a Ministry of Truth.
I'll believe the First Amendment is under attack when politicians threaten to cause billions of dollars of damage to media companies unless they censor mean harrassment, oh, please start with the harrassing tweets of our political opponents right before an electio...thank you!
I'll believe the First Amendment is under attack when there's an organized push to re-visit the value of "the marketplace of ideas", across several weeks, concluding harrassment is not valuable, and therefore could be made illegal. (Which, as with threats to sanction companies by wiping section 230, would be immediately applied to political opponents.)
Since none of that happened in the past few years, obviously the First Amendment is safe from politicians in the US*.
* Remember 6 years ago, when the biggest First Amendment fear, discussed around here, was whether the new president would work to make it easier to sue people who criticized the famous? Good times!
"your car could be freely searched."
Dude. Wait until I tell you about the Fourth Amendment case law on this subject and who writes most of it.
What's uniquely dangerous about an AR-15 that makes it different from other hunting-style .223s?
Nothing except the user.
And, where is that Hale manifesto?
Why do you think these people keep saying this when it's obviously not true?
Josh Sugarmann bragged about it years ago:
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
Basically, the gun control movement figured that, having already effectively banned machine guns, if they could confuse people into thinking a gun was a machine gun, banning it, too, would be easy.
Manifesto, Manifesto, who's got the Manifesto,
I get why they won't release it, I don't get why someone in the "Bureau" hasn't leaked it,
Oh yeah, now I do,
it doesn't fit the "Narrative"
Frank
For all you know it's been leaked a half dozen times already, to MSM outlets that refused to publish it. It's not like the media run with leaks that counter the narrative.
But it is illogical to say that not knowing the AR-15 they didn't know that there was already terrible destructive power. Or that foreseeing improvements in the powers available to evil foks that they would hamstring people from protection by saying citizens can own BB gun.
MaverickNH, suppositions about what the founders would have thought about modern issues are doomed to be nothing more than unfounded speculation, no matter who is doing the speculating, or what points are insisted upon. Based on no means of inference ever invented, is there any ability to analyze what the founders, "would have," thought, done, or said about any of today's issues. You can't do that. The problem is not that it is against the rules to do that. The problem is that it is impossible to do that.
MaverickNH, suppositions about what the founders would have thought about modern issues are doomed to be nothing more than unfounded speculation
Well, given that he didn't say a word about what the founders would have thought about anything I'm not sure what it is you're prattling on about here...and I'm betting that makes two of us.
To deal with modern developments, the Founders would fall back on their design principles, especially “Would the Tyrant King George III have used it to keep us subjugated?”
This is why I keep screetching that phone “metadata” is not, in fact, fair game for intelligence agencies sans warrant. The Tyrant King would have used it for the exact reason modern agencies do, to fill out contact networks.
So rounding people up is a breeze.
Sure, slaves had the RKBA pursuant the individual right expressed by the 2A. /sarc
Idiots like to throw out lines like that as if modern sensibilities applied 200 years ago. They forget, or never knew, that evolution was unknown, that blacks, yellows, and reds were considered subhuman or at least inferior mentally because it was the whites who had explored and conquered them, not the other way round, thus proving whites were predestined to rule the world.
They even forget that at least into the 1950s, it was still common to talk of the English, German, French, Italian, and other "races", that there were still racial purists who thought marriages between those "races" was unsightly, unmanly, impure, etc.
And by extension, blacks, reds, yellows, and other subhuman races had no more right to keep and bear arms than dogs or cattle did. Maybe you ought to read Dred Scott some time, learn a little, and appreciate how much better things are now, woke CRT mythology notwithstanding.
I agree, Dredd Scott was correct—we were founded as a white supremacy nation and the term “slavery” does not do justice to the truly evil society we created.
Have you ever heard of the 3/5ths rule that was in the Constitution?
So slaves had 3/5th of the RKBA?? The right to keep arms but not bear them??
Is this whole playing stupid thing you do an act?
Nope
Originalists like to throw out lines as if 200 year old sensibilities applied to modern times.
Conveniently, the Founders made ways to update the Constitution for when sensibilities change.
If you don't like what the 2A says, change what it says.
Easier to change dictionaries.
Some other words and phrases they’ve already successfully changed:
“man”
“woman”
“healthy”
“marriage”
“White”
“Fascist/m”
“Socialist/m”
“good”
“freedom”
“racist/m”
“tolerance”
"meat"
"bigotry"
"diversity"
"high quality of life"
"health insurance"
Feel free to add your own.
Very very poorly argued. You reverse history by your silly obsession with evolution...two leading historians of the slave trade, John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University, for the proposition that roughly 90% of the slaves sent across the Middle Passage were enslaved by African traders and then sold to Europeans along the coast. Other leading scholars believe that the percentage is actually much higher, that only at the margins were any Africans enslaved directly by Europeans.
Wrong about Dred Scot and races too. It was the law that defined 'race' so that even the most white looking people , if they had 1/8 black in their background, were Black. But mathematically that meant taking your ancestors as white or black and applying a standard to them that was different from the person who's race you were determining to begin with. In the Plessy case Homer Plessy was so white he had to tell the conductor he was 'legally' black!!! So I reject CRT crap but your version too.
The black skin that is genetically dominant is what made our white supremacy society possible. We even annexed more of Mexico into Texas so runaway slaves would die in the desert instead of making it to Mexico. We just wanted a group of people that couldn’t integrate because of genetics and so would always be a underclass.
That said, didn’t most African slaves in Africa do much better than African slaves in the Colonies & America? It’s only when Europeans (Dutch) got involved, that captured intra-African slaves were treated far more poorly (to put it lightly). “Heart of Darkness” Norton Critical Edition is a Little Shop of Horrors in delving into the matter https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393264869
I think this is a dumb argument. A very dumb argument.
As it turned out, there was a size limit below with nuclear bomb technology couldn’t go. And you can at least argue that a Davy Crockett launcher isn’t a side-arm that is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But what if the size limit was lower? What if you could make nuclear bomb rounds? Would the development of this technology automatically be protected by the Second Amendment? Would there be a constitutional right to keep and bear nuclear weapons?
Look, I’m not trying to say the opposite either. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment means you only have the right to whatever was available in 1791 or 1868. I’m saying it’s hard and contextual and this sort of brain-dead argumentation, “well the framers were aware that technology would change” doesn’t get you where you want to go, anymore than the framers’ knowledge that technology would change answers the issues raised in Kyllo or Carpenter or what punishments are cruel and unusual in 2023.
It’s entirely possible that the framers were aware that technology would change, but that some leaps in technology are so significant that they impact whether there is a right to keep and bear the arm that is produced by the technology improvement. I could imagine that if some of the weapons conjured in science fiction were ever invented (particularly weapons that vaporize a person with little trace), there would be substantial and powerful arguments for their control. You can’t slogan your way out of the difficult policy questions the Second Amendment raises.
"What if you could make nuclear bomb rounds? Would the development of this technology automatically be protected by the Second Amendment?"
Leftists are trying to ban the most common and popular firearms in the country and when conservatives object and push back we get "WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR BULLETS LOL!" It's just pure sophistry and incredibly tiresome. As deeply unserious as the "rape and incest" concern trolls in the abortion debate, really. Can we ever get a good faith argument from the Left? Even once?
You mean there aren't nuclear bullets? I can remember the first day on the range in basic where the DI put an ammo can down range and demonstrated the power of the ultimate round by hitting it with a nuclear bullet and disintegrating it.
Well, there are depleted uranium rounds , i.e., just U-238 - which could be used in regular cartridges, but they are by definition NOT "nuclear" - though there's evidence that regular uranium accidentally found its way into some military ammo in Afghanistan.
Provided you're not concerned about yield or exposure, you can make a just-about portable nuclear weapon from Pu=239.
It is, however, much safer - for the bomber, that is - to use conventional explosive with just a smidgen of plutonium as a small dirty bomb.
"Provided you’re not concerned about yield or exposure, you can make a just-about portable nuclear weapon from Pu=239."
Been There, Done That!
That would be the 1954 (?) "Davy Crockett", a crew served tiny tactical nuclear weapon. The only drawback was it was as likely to incinerate the crew as the enemy. There were regular "myths" that several were in VIetnam in the late '60's and early '70's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEAuapfwHc
“As deeply unserious as the “rape and incest” concern trolls in the abortion debate, really. Can we ever get a good faith argument from the Left? Even once?”
What do you think is deeply unserious about it? What’s in bad faith? These are facts:
Women get raped or are victims of incest and can get pregnant. This includes minors as young as ten. Pregnancy involves great physical and emotional burdens on the human body, generally, but even more so when the pregnant woman is going to deliver the baby of their attacker. Pregnancy is dangerous for minors in particular.
Republican legislatures have removed rape and incest exceptions. They have removed exceptions for young minors. They have narrowly drawn life and health exceptions so that doctors are wary of terminating a pregnancy until it becomes an indisputably dangerous situation for the patient.
What’s bad faith for pointing this reality out? What is a concern troll about it?
"What do you think is deeply unserious about it? What’s in bad faith?"
I'm trying to have a serious policy debate and the sophists are acting as though the women who seek abortions due to rape and incest are anything more than a rounding error. A fraction of a single percent, at most. The topic is abortion and rape and incest have nothing to do with it.
a rounding error
They are real people. Law and policy must deal with them.
You kinda suck for trying to ignore them as a 'rounding error.'
You're focusing on the extreme tails of the distribution and have the nerve to criticize me for being preoccupied with the 99.99%. And people keep asking why I say the other side's arguments are 100% bad faith, 100% of the time. It's all rape and incest and nuclear fucking bullets.
Policymaking is not a statistical practice. You don't just tell individuals they're on the tail so they can go get fucked.
It's not very high cost to make an exception for them. You're defending needless negligence.
I haven't expressed my policy preferences on abortion, but since you brought it up: are you okay with abortion being prohibited, EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest? Throw in health of the mother (actual physical health)? Because if so, that's great! We don't even disagree.
Or.
OR.
Was the nonstop invocation of rape and incest pretextual nonsense? Here we go, let's see those goal posts sliiiiiide.
Kleppe, your self-confidence seems misplaced. The abortion regime you seem to prefer could not happen unless rigorously policed. That premise is not one anyone should endorse, lest they number themselves among advocates to subordinate the status of women generally.
What the hell? I don't need to be pro life to object to your awful immoral idea of policymaking.
Which is bad generally, not just when it comes to abortion.
You've lost the individual for the group. That's got a bad history, mostly in communist countries.
" I don’t need to be pro life to object to your awful immoral idea of policymaking."
You don't get to claim the moral high ground when your policy preference is actual, literal baby murder.
It's not necessarily pure sophistry. If someone argues an absolutist position - "no law means NO LAW" and "arms means ALL arms" - it is reasonable to counter the argument with examples of arms, such as nuclear weapons, or weaponised anthrax, that the first person may be reluctant to include. And once someone backs down from the absolutist position - as they should, unless they're idiots - one can then start examining what limits on KBA actually exist or should exist.
More generally, it is a legitimate attack on an absolutist argument that that argument would encompass conditions or circumstances that the arguer would not in fact support, hence weakening or disproving their argument. To call it sophistry is like complaining that the other team cheated because they scored more goals.
This.
This.
I don't know what it is about this issue that turns you into a complete idiot, assuming you're not being disingenuous, which might not be a good assumption considering how many times your ignorance-based arguments have been shredded here over the years.
it is reasonable to counter the argument with examples of arms, such as nuclear weapons, or weaponised anthrax, that the first person may be reluctant to include
It is not reasonable to counter with those examples, because they are not "arms"...which is why the first person does not include them.
Put forth a modicum of effort toward remedying your ignorance of the subject and maybe...just maybe...it will be a good idea for you to continue commenting.
Personally I think nukes are 2nd Amendment protected and if you have the several hundred billion dollars or more to launch your own private weapons development program be my guest. There are several major world powers that may take action to stop you, though.
Pregnancies from rape and incest are legitimate concerns.
"Rightists" are always trotting out the idea of aborting a healthy fetus in the last week of pregnancy as if it were something that actually happened, and therefore all abortions must be banned. Nobody prochoice is arguing for an absolute right to terminate any pregnancy at any time, so that's sophistry.
What a juvenille silliness your post is.
You pretend to abhor late abortions but in fact say nothing about them. They DO happen.
THe question logicallly and medically is only is this an innocent human life and frauds like you retreat from the science because it isn't acceptable.
Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’
. The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)..
And on legal grounds you are way wrong. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their laws prohibiting abortion. Twenty-eight classified abortion as an “offense against the person,” or a functionally equivalent classification. These statutes were enacted in recognition of unborn human beings’ full and equal membership in the human family. In Ohio, the same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages just three months later. Josh Craddock ( in Harvard journal of Law and Public Policy, I think) eviscerates your desire to justify killing the unborn.Not a word on you of your efforts to stop the killing that even you must admit does go on.
{wrong post}
A group of academics convened over a century ago to discuss whether God exists; asked afterward if God exists, one of the academics said, "Yes, we had a good majority."
Late abortions are rare (generally, life or health of the mother), and Roe did not make them otherwise legal. I am fine with making third trimester abortions illegal outside of those cases, but I also favor eliminating the obstacles to early abortions so often imposed.
Note that you can always find a few exceptions to express any extreme position; the right is quick to run out some total unknown to tar all of their political opponents; compare the influence of Wade Churchill to Pat Robertson on the subject of blaming America for 9/11. Are you unaware of prominent national politicians touting "Second Amendment remedies"?
Regarding the links subsequently given:
Ryan is clearly talking about not prejudging varying scenarios, but expressing it rather badly. In debate with Vance he said he favored codifying the same limits that Roe had created. Compare also that he wasn't elected to the Senate, same as Todd "shut that whole thing down" Akin and Richard "something God intended" Mourdock.
Sadly, the mayor of New York is pretty dumb. His statement could be generously taken as only things Roe allowed that Dobbs overturned, and I expect his advisors would get him to issue a clarification if pressed on it.
But if you want to tar everybody on one side of the political spectrum with one prominent individual's bad opinion, consider Donald Trump and his endorsement of his right to commit sexual assault, and the Republican Party's 2020 platform which was essentially "whatever Trump wants to do". Congratulations to you if you've avoided hypocrisy by repudiating Trump and the Republican Party.
"... consider Donald Trump and his endorsement of his right to commit sexual assault..."
You know that you're lying, and you know that we know that you're lying. So, apart from proving that you are a tedious shit, what's the point of your lying?
Nobody prochoice is arguing for an absolute right to terminate any pregnancy at any time, so that’s sophistry.
The Mayor of New York City (and many other abortion rights supporters) says you're full of shit.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1526186937744248832
So does this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1_U3a2jD3Q
"You can’t slogan your way out of the difficult policy questions the Second Amendment raises."
This criticism would carry more weight if Republican legislators and judges viewed it as a difficult policy question: they don't. There is no human or societal cost that is worth restricting gun access to them. That's what they decided, that's the world we live in. I think you'll find that they have successfully sloganed their way out of policy questions.
Rants that sane people should argue in good faith with bad faith hypotheticals are even dumber premises.
"There is no human or societal cost that is worth restricting gun access to them."
If that bit of hyperbolic nonsense was true, then it should be impossible to find any gun control measures passed by Republicans, right?
Do I need to find you a counterexample, or will you admit what you wrote was bullshit?
It’s not bullshit. It’s reality. You find examples at the margins sure, but it’ll be easy to demonstrate how they don’t pass the new Bruen test or how other conservative groups want to dismantle even those piss poor regulations.
They don’t want this problem dealt with because they simply don’t care. It’s been obvious for years now.
So examples of Republican gun control don’t count if some other conservatives don’t like it?
By that 100.0% standard, I can just as convincingly argue that Democrats aren’t willing to do anything for abortion rights.
After all, some Democrats oppose the examples you’d try to use to say I’m wrong.
You sound like a teenage girl. ALL Democrats agree with you ???ALL Republicans disagree with you ??? So you posit that there is a cost and then further posit that they know this cost and heartlessly support something wrong. Your makeup needs tending to
There is a cost to widely available guns. We see it everyday. There are people heartlessly supporting wrong things we see that too. Ted Cruz saw the pictures of the Uvalde kids mutilated bodies and still heartlessly could not give less of a shit about doing anything useful to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
If that makes me a teenage girl, fine. Maybe you should reflect one why teenage girls have better moral sense than you do.
Nah, the average teen aged girl has for more common sense and reason.
They wouldn't be nearly as simple minded to stamp their little feet, have a hissy fit and suggest that the other side of a discussion has no concern for the death of children by a insane Transexual Democrat.
What if you could pack a Death Star into a motorcycle saddle bag?
What if plasma rifles with super dooper gyro-stabilized scopes could shoot satellites out of the sky?
What if Mr Fusion after market kits could allow flying cars to shoot down B-21 bombers?
What if time travel allowed you to go back in time and convince your earlier self to not post that comment?
What if any person at any time could kill a lot of people very quickly no matter how many other armed/trained people were around?
Better ban trucks, airplanes, water heaters, and gardening, then!
Those are all way more regulated than guns.
You think trucks and water heaters and gardening supplies are more regulated than guns?!
You're either an alien, or a complete nutjob.
Trucks?
If you mean commercial ones, then yes. You need special commercial drivers licenses to operate them. And there are weight requirements and weigh stations, and emissions regulations. More regulation if they're carrying something dangerous like fuel or chemicals.
Water heaters
Yes. We have extensive consumer product safety regulations and building codes.
gardening supplies
I'll give you gardening as a general matter, but will note that pesticides and herbicides are also highly regulated, and any powered gardening tools like a roto-tiller would have consumer product safety regulations.
I can rent a U-haul with nothing more than a driver's license and a credit card, and then run it through a crowd killing dozens.
I can buy a water heater with nothing more than money. The "regulations" you are claiming here are manufacturing (of the sort that also apply to gun manufacturers) or... legal installation and building codes? Which would not apply to using one as a small bomb, or to manufacture chemical weapons in, at all.
Gardening supplies have extremely limited regulations, limited to (as you point out) "product safety" style - of the same sort that also apply to guns, by the way. But no restrictions on felons buying fertilizer, or children buying herbicides. Large scale use (tons) has additional regulation, but (again) that applies to guns and gunpowder, too.
Guns, on the other hand, are extremely limited in manufacture - not just the product safety, but also size, style, number. Getting an FFL is a lot harder than getting a CDL, while an SOT is even worse.
You're restricted in where you can carry, how you can carry, what you can carry, what legal activity you're doing when carrying...
Seriously, when you start trying to bring in building codes its pretty obvious you are not making an argument in good faith.
The Uvalde shooter was able to get two AR-15 rifles the day after he turned 18 and then a week later was shooting up a school.
That's absolutely irrelevant to anything that's been argued so far.
Are you already reduced to "Won't anyone think of the children?!"
Does that mean there aren't any regulations on firearms?
Hrm...
More a problem of the system that ignored someone with serious social and mental issues.
Which proves you are wrong !! What kind of guy like that is in the least deterred by your stupid pointless ineffective gun law??? We have 400 million guns in the US. Want to help, deal with the nutjobs you are describing.
Well someone has to because gun freaks apparently won’t
Replying to LTG:
Did SarcastrO teach you to talk out of your ass like that or is it just your natural ability?
Remember, if time machines are outlawed, only outlaws will have time machines.
The point is, is there a hypothetical point where the technological improvement created such a danger that Kopel would say "I agree, you can't consider that the same as an 'arm' under the Second Amendment"? Maybe that hypothetical point is quite far away and not likely to be achieved. But it's important because that's the actual ground of the argument-- other people are saying we've reached that point with some current weaponry, and (at least the smart ones) aren't saying "nothing that didn't exist in 1791 is protected". They are saying that the Framers' awareness of technological progress doesn't mean that EVERYTHING that might be invented after 1791 will be.
What technological advancements do “assault style” AR-15s have that “hunting style” semi-automatic .223s dont have?
That seems like a reasonable argument,l and one I probably could subscribe to, but I cant seem to make it work with what the Democrats are currently arguing.
AFAIK about guns, semiautomatic long gun .223’s are technologically equivalents whether they are hunting style or assault style.
If you go back to a genuine originalist position on the 2nd amendment, Tench Coxe said that it was a right to "every terrible implement of the soldier". So, you don't want citizens to have a right to carry 20KT yield antimatter grenades and lasers that can cut buildings in half?
Don't issue them to soldiers. It's a right to be armed in the same fashion as the military, after all. Nothing says you have to have the standard grunt carrying weapons that can erase whole cities from the face of the Earth.
Now, nuclear weapons? They're "armaments", not arms, until you start issuing them to soldiers as they graduate from boot camp.
And as you know, I think that argument doesn't work unless you take the militia language of the Second Amendment seriously.
And I do take it seriously. Your problem with me isn't that I don't take the militia language seriously. It's that I understand English grammar.
There's no evidence of that and a lot of evidence you read legal texts in whatever way will get you the result you want, especially here where the framers told you their purpose and it is one you dislike because it conflicts with your right wing anarcho-libertarian beliefs.
That is an insanely ironic and self-owning statement for a gun controller to make in the context of the 2nd amendment. And, based on Kopel's books that I own, particularly ironic in a comment on a essay he wrote.
Brett, it is NOT the right to be armed in the same fashion as the military. ANd you are lumping murderous psychos in with the great mass of honest law-abiding folk just so you can rule out the human factor and act as if the existence of weapons means their misuse. This is a perfectionist argument.
From a strict originalist position, it is EXACTLY that.
Try to remember that, until the middle of the 20th century, there wasn’t anything a US soldier carried around that a US citizen couldn’t own. There wasn’t any legal distinction between military and civilian arms. After WWII, they were literally selling surplus anti-tank guns mail order!
You’re trying to take a distinction that grew up within living memory, as being of fundamental constitutional significance.
Firearms in the Founding era that were good for militia and soldier functions were not something folks wanted to own for daily use, there had to be laws insisting that they have these suboptimal guns.
Jake Charles has done some good research in that.
The originalist 2A is less a thing than this aspirational 2A.
What weapons someone might want "for daily use" has nothing to do with anything. The second Amendment recognized the existence of an individual right to bear arms, not a right to bear the most convenient of arms.
If the existence of AR-15s (or M-16s, for that matter) causes you to think that the 2A-recognized right to bear arms ought to be restricted to less than its natural meaning then you are free to advocate for adoption of a more restrictive Amendment.
I grok that, say, a frontiersman might prefer a rifle (for hunting) over a Brown Bess, but note Morgan's riflemen.
But that argument seems to go more towards a law saying you must own an M-16 than one that says you can't own an AR-15.
My point is that there was no legal distinction because the practical distinction was all you needed.
There is a line on what civs can own. We’re it is, I haven’t got a personal opinion yet. But arguing there can be no line seems pretty ridiculous.
The issue is not what they would have wanted. It's quite possible the average person didn't want a bayonet lug on their hunting rifle, but so what? The issue was, could they own them if they wanted?
Yes, they could. I literally could have bought an anti-tank gun mail order as a teen, if I hadn't been spending all my allowance on books! That's how recent the idea of a hard distinction between military and civilian arms is!
There are lots of reasons why there was not a law against something in the past. A Constitution bar on such laws is hardly the only one.
Dilan, when you have to resort to science fiction to argue about reality, you lose hands down.
See SRG's comment above.
See SRG’s comment above.
And see my response to it. Why you continually insist on looking like an idiot on this subject, I don’t know.
Generally if someone who is not an idiot points out things that you think are beyond the pale on a particular subject, the proper response is not to assume that person is the idiot. It's to ask what you aren't getting.
In this case it would appear that both you and he are in fact idiots, as the ignorance of the premise on which he based his argument, and that you applauded, was pointed out…and has been pointed for you for many years now…and yet you just keep spouting the same bullshit.
It is not remotely in evidence that you are not an idiot.
In fact it is quite clear that you are on this subject (and a number of others) very much an imbecile.
Awareness of innovation is not a yes/no thing. It's not like being pregnant or not. It's a matter of degree. Just because the Founders were aware of changes like match-locks to wheel-locks or muzzle-loading single-shot pistols to revolvers, doesn't mean that they could predict hand-held machine guns or AR15s.
They also couldn't predict that those would be widely sold to anyone and everyone. And that some of those people would then go murder kids very quickly while law enforcement more or less let them do it. And that the political response would be to post a "thought and prayers" statement on a social media website and then go to fundraiser where the same weapon used to murder the kids was being auctioned off.
Also, to be a bit more provocative, they didn't predict the shift to urban living and the demise of the local/state militia as both a law enforcement and civil defense unit (the latter of which is expressly referenced in the Second Amendment).
If you are a framer thinking "sure, they're going to invent newer, more powerful guns, but people are going to serve in the militia and they are going to be trained and disciplined and will learn to use and maintain them in that context and keep them in their spread out homes throughout the farms and small towns of America, so we don't have to worry about it that much", the demise of that system and way of life and its replacement with a consumerist, individualist urban society where guns are advertised in mass culture as badass and very few people serve in civil defense should change that calculus a lot.
You make so many bad arguments.
Let's give you the "debater's test" Will you stipulate the following?YOu can state up front that you think it is dead wrong but by stiplutation you will allow your respondents to argue based on their own take on the same data. Ready ? Will you stipulate that IF the following WERE true that the gun problem might be largely political and not just about ownership of guns?
HERE is the stipulation
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris / @samantharenck / November 04, 2022
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/04/democrat-run-cities-counties-have-a-murder-problem-report-shows/
You are absolutely right - they could never have imagined the AR-15.
Of course, they could easily imagine a semi-automatic rifle because they were familiar with them.
They could imagine machine guns because they had seen early prototypes and were trying to make more of them. Predicting that practical ones would exist someday in the future would take no special insight.
They were quite familiar with bombs, too, so even a nuclear weapon could easily be predicted - they'd just need to predict really big bomb. Sure, few would have been able to predict the physics behind it - but then again, do you understand those physics - or the chemistry behind black powder or gun powder?
But you are the one supposing that that matters !!! Most homicides are by non-AR-15 and non hand-held machine gun.
And it ridiculous to think that whoever would want to use those things for murder does not indicate a societal problem, that if you make guns harder to get , these guys have no outlet. You sound like Biden after the ridiculously innocuous failed dumb Brady Bill, crowing his ass off about something proved worthless.
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology.
They might be surprised at how little progress we have made. Some of my gun nut friends say the best handgun you can buy is a 1911 model. They also like pump-action shotguns.
If you want to understand resistance to 2A restrictions read this:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-new-jersey-has-enacted-the-largest-gun-ban-in-us-history/
Even wrist rockets are banned. Dennis the Menace, felon.
They outlawed bb guns too, lol wtf
No Red Ryder for Christmas this year.
Waiting for someone to argue that this does not qualify as infringing.
No Red Ryder for Christmas this year.
You'll put your eye out with that thing, kid!
Apparently I should be able to buy lawn darts provided I intend to use them as weapons, not as a game.
They have had metal tips in decades.
Obviously that should read "haven't".
Used to have a set of "Jarts". (Lost them in a move.) Gotta love lawn games that evolved from medieval weapons of war.
It's too bad that these gentlemen did not foresee just how new and improved firearms would be used in the coming centuries. Despite their supposed familiarity with the advantages of frontier-style fighting over straight-line Redcoat fighting, they did not (could not?) foresee the huge advantage the defense gained over the offense when rifled muskets replaced smoothbores. If they had, the Civil War might have been fought very differently (e.g. without Pickett's Charge), with smaller butcher's bills.
Didn't we have rifles in 1775?
The 2nd Amd. allows arms for a stated purpose, not arms for any purpose. But let's consider how the loose the word meaning can be.
Taking the originalist view that the meaning of "arms" captured the then-current weaponry and contemplated advances in weapon design, brings me back to this query. The mortar has been around longer than shoulder arms, and surely the word "arms" includes a mortar -> bigger barrel, bigger charge, bigger bullet, but otherwise the mechanical equivalent of a single-shot musket. Therefore do citizens have a "right" to "keep" mortars and mortar shells around their homes? If our one-time president is going to urge his sycophants to hunt down those with varying political beliefs, then I might need some mortar shells to discourage them. Is having a mortar to shoot of my right under the loosely-construed word "arms"?
Cannons could be privately owned -- James g Blaine pointed his at the Maine State House...