Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Second Amendment, in its Historical Context
Why 21st century guns aren't applicable to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:
http://moyerboard.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-second-amendment-in-its-historical_21.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 884 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Second Amendment, in its Historical Context (Original Post)
CountSnail
Dec 2012
OP
jmg257
(11,996 posts)1. Well - atleast the author is not another one trying to redefine what it says.
He just thinks it needs to be amended so guns can be better controlled.
hay rick
(7,643 posts)2. Good article.
From the article:
However, there is another historical element to the Second Amendment that is never discussed in the gun control debate: the nature of arms in the 18th century. When the Constitution was written, there were only three different kinds of arms: muskets, pistols, and rifles. Muskets, the weapon of choice for the colonists and the British during the American Revolution, were single shot, muzzle loaded weapons that were very inaccurate and had a slow rate of fire. The pistols of this era were also single shot weapons with spotty accuracy and a slow rate of fire. Rifles, while more accurate than the former two weapons, had an even slower rate of fire and were typically relegated to hunting expeditions.
All three of these weapons were used to perform feasible tasks in their day and age. Cities and towns were sparsely protected by any official army or police force, so they were a good tool for self defense. Grocery stores werent around yet, so hunting was a necessity for many people if they wanted to eat. However, none of the aforementioned weapons could turn any single, unstable individual into a killing machine. They couldnt fire off dozens of highly accurate rounds in a span of a few seconds. They couldnt be reloaded in seconds. They couldnt be tweaked and remolded in ways that made them even more deadly.
Our 21st century weaponry was inconceivable to the Founding Fathers. Their concept of guns and a full-fledged national military were vastly different from the concepts that we now recognize. Therefore, its unwise to accept the current wording of the Second Amendment as applicable in 2012.
This isnt a shocking or unpatriotic thing to say. Contrary to the common position touted by many Conservative pundits, the U.S. Constitution is not an untouchable, insoluble document. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that new amendments could be added on and older ones could be repealed, and they did this for a reason. They, unlike their pseudo contemporaries, recognized that as times change, its occasionally necessary to alter the Constitution to reflect new universal standards. Remember, this document once endorsed the concept of slavery, barred women from voting, and forbid the commercial distribution of alcohol. All of those unsavory elements of the Constitution were eventually nullified.
All three of these weapons were used to perform feasible tasks in their day and age. Cities and towns were sparsely protected by any official army or police force, so they were a good tool for self defense. Grocery stores werent around yet, so hunting was a necessity for many people if they wanted to eat. However, none of the aforementioned weapons could turn any single, unstable individual into a killing machine. They couldnt fire off dozens of highly accurate rounds in a span of a few seconds. They couldnt be reloaded in seconds. They couldnt be tweaked and remolded in ways that made them even more deadly.
Our 21st century weaponry was inconceivable to the Founding Fathers. Their concept of guns and a full-fledged national military were vastly different from the concepts that we now recognize. Therefore, its unwise to accept the current wording of the Second Amendment as applicable in 2012.
This isnt a shocking or unpatriotic thing to say. Contrary to the common position touted by many Conservative pundits, the U.S. Constitution is not an untouchable, insoluble document. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that new amendments could be added on and older ones could be repealed, and they did this for a reason. They, unlike their pseudo contemporaries, recognized that as times change, its occasionally necessary to alter the Constitution to reflect new universal standards. Remember, this document once endorsed the concept of slavery, barred women from voting, and forbid the commercial distribution of alcohol. All of those unsavory elements of the Constitution were eventually nullified.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)3. Using the logic that
the 2nd Amendment was never meant for 21st century guns then the 1st Amendment was never intended for 21st century communication.
ComplimentarySwine
(515 posts)4. Look at how rapidly information spreads now
It seems possible for someone to do a great deal of damage now via the written word spread around the world in a matter of seconds. For instance, look at the mayhem that was supposedly caused by that video not too long ago.
Are you guys sure that you even want to keep the constitution around?