I'm all for bearing arms so long as we go back to the arms we had 200 years ago

I'm all for bearing arms so long as we go back to the arms we had 200 years ago.

That's only fair if you want to try to interpret what kind of arms the forefathers had in mind when they wrote the consititution, I think they involved muskets and not AK47s. Large manually loaded rifles that are impossible to conceal.

There, you can still exercise your right to bear arms and protect your family from the boogeyman.

Modern day weapons are not what they had in mind when they granted commonfolk the right to bear them.

Of course you are correct. If they knew what was coming, that (misinterpreted) Amendment would not have seen the light of day.

:yourock:

Clearly you are not psychologically or emotionally equipped to deal with a black man in the White House.

has got to be the dumbest page of an already dumb anti-gun playbook.

would progress over time.

Anytime assault weapons are mentioned, they automatically say "well then how about a nuke"? I wonder what would happen if all semi-automatic firearms, handgun, rifle, and shotgun were banned, what would happen? My guess is, since no lobbying organization has ever said "ok, we've accomplished our goal so we're quitting now", they would start saying "So you want a bolt-action rifle and a revolver? Well then how about a nuke"? You see how that works? Whatever the "evil gun of the day" is, it will be equated with owning a nuke.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's funny I thought that was the republican mantra.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where did he say that....all he said was the intent of the founders right to bear arms was to have the population armed with the same weapons the government had...that doesnt necessarily mean that you have a right to overthrow the government

you are almost too childish to have a debate with....operative word "almost"

I guess it was deemed to conservative/republican of a remark for this board. My instincts rarely steer me wrong.

Which is against DU's rules.

You made the "mistake" of posting something not 100% pro-gun in the "gungeon."

Not against the rules, btw.

Nothing I've seen you post has convinced me you're a troll. Pretty liberal, imo.

Stick around.

Isn't the a forum for liberals and democrats only?
I know there are some democrats that are pro gun but the support for pro-gun legislation I've seen here is just as strong as I've seen it in bipartisan forums.

The party of fear is the republican party. I'd imagine there's a republican underground for that.

and you will find many of us "pro-gun" folks support many other causes which you would consider "liberal"- abortion rights, ending the war in iraq, universal healthcare

we just feel that a large section of the democratic party has it wrong on gun control

Being pro-gun, naturally we would support pro-gun legislation

not all "liberals" are the same, infact the term isnt one that is set in black or white but in shades of gray.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What brought that on? I read that post and honestly don't get it.

Did you reply to the wrong post?

"It's a little boring when you agree with everyone on the forum." Interesting that he likes to disagree about things but thinks if we disagree with him we are Repubs. Just seemed to my like he might need to look the word up.

David

We value diverse thought here.

David

the mistake was that he made a pretty stupid argument (one that has been used time and again) on why we should limit citizens to muskets

you want to argue for gun control...fine...i'd enjoy a good debate...but arguing such a static view of the constitution is just plain silly....the idea that founders thought time was static and that nothing would change or that the rights that were in the bill of rights wouldn't evolve.

LOL!

Man, the gungeon is where the most special people reside.

Restricting people's ability to own certain things is oh-so-liberal.... :eyes:

Tell me. Do you often suffer with the problems associated with cognitive dissonance?

You sure you're REALLY cool with handing out cannon to folks? John Hancock (big signature guy) had a fleet of merchant ships with cannon.

were the latest and greatest in killing technology for the day. I'll give up my AR15 when you give up personal computers.

How about applying the same standard:

"I'm all for human beings so long as we go back to the way we defined humans 200 years ago."

Sorry, African-Americans, you're back to 3/5.

Sheesh.

To follow your analogy, we would have to assume that modern weapons were treated the same as African Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution and therefore access to them now is somehow equivalent to extending equality to blacks. Sheesh.

The point isn't about what constituted 'modern weapons' when the Bill of Rights was formulated, but whether or not "original intent" should be the primary standard on which the Constitution is interpreted.

I'm a progressive, I consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be a living document applicable to our times: privacy includes the right to an abortion or any other medical care; and "arms" means what we use today ... a bit of consistency will serve liberals and progressives more in the end than starting another self-destructive fight over gun control.

Sheesh, indeed!

in fact a living constitution standard actually strengthens the belief in an individual right to bear arms under the second amendment

the living constitution doctrine takes much of its power from public opinion. Public opinion is used to understand what certain rights mean to people and then interpreted in that view. so that rights that people think they have, or rights they think they should have, are seen to be rights in regards to the constitution. If we apply this to the second amendment, where an overwhelming majority of the public thinks they have an individual right (by about 4:1), it would only make sense that the constitution is interpreted to include a individual right to bear arms...

you should read akhil amars paper on the right to bear arms and how it has been redefined through the history of this country
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf

he argues that maybe the original intent of the second amendment was a collective right but that it has been redefined, like so many other rights in this country (like a right to privacy which is actually not included in an provision in the constitution) to be an individual right

If someone with ill intent wants to delete another person, the tool used doesn't matter very much.

By the way, muzzle loading rifles were common 200 years ago and were accurate enough to hit a man at 300 yards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_rifle

If I can't trust you with a 30 shot semi-auto rifle or a handgun, I don't trust you with a 200 year old musket. If I can trust you with a musket, I can trust you with a modern gun.

Is free speech via internet, or photo copier not protected?

Can the police in engage in wiretapping without warrant since the technology didn't exist 200 years ago so the 4th doesn't apply?

Are the only protected religions the ones established prior to the BoR? Any modern religion can be prohibited?

To apply your "logic" to any other portion of the BofR is laughable but somehow it makes sense to limit the 2nd.

The irony is that the rifle you mention was state of the art for its time:
Military - muzzle loading flint lock
Civilian - muzzle loading flint lock

Today we have
Military - fully automatic select fire assault rifle
Civilian - semi-automatic "look alike" rifle

If we had the same level of equality that citizens enjoyed at the founding it would be:
Military - fully automatic select fire assault rifle
Civilian - fully automatic select fire assault rifle

and I can get the hell out of the way whilst you're stuffing your musket balls into the barrel of the gun

And that they could be concealed under a jacket, in a sack, in a purse, in a saddle bag, behind their back etc.

They had pistols under 6" in total length prior to independence designed to be concealed.

Besides, if one had plans to kill another "old school" I'd think they'd load their shot in advance and hide in some bushes to take them out from cover. Kind of like one would hunt a deer. Or do you think huntsmen back in the dizzle frantically began stuffing shot and pouder (to use the old spelling) down the muzzle when they spotted a four legged beast?

No I am not saying the old guns were as deadly (well, shot for shot they were likely more so - you give me a choice between 5.56 NATO and a .70 caliber ball, I'll stand in from of the AR 15!) but they were still damned lethal if someone wanted to do you harm.

he's doing it wrong.

It's a little boring when you agree with everyone on the forum.

I'm just trying to get my post count up so I can send a private message to someone.

there are two extremely different viewpoints that are often hotly debated in this forum.

If you reply you can increase your post count.

FAIL

adaptable and fit the future....thats what was so ingenious about the document....thats its core provisions still hold true today

if we use your argument than you dont have a right to free speech over the internet, on the TV, radio...or any other mass media except print and the spoken word (btw that doesnt include a microphone either). You would also be accepting the fact that abortion and contraceptives could be banned since only until recently (in the last 50 yrs) did they start finding constitutional permissible reasons to strike these laws down (for the longest times these laws would withstand constitutional scrutiny and be held constitutional)

so if you want to take an extreme originalist look (more originalist than scalia or thomas) than go ahead be my guest...but be weary when you find out how many other rights that you take for granted....will also be gone.

Now, go consider what would happen if all things were treated that way. For example, the 4th amendment protects your "papers." So, your computer is now an open book for the government. Watch those porn sites, eh?

Concepts, not precise things, are what the Constitution is about. The Revolutionary War musket is the same concept as today's M-4 or AK-47. It was the firearm of the infantryman. That is what the founders meant.

Of course, I suspect you know that already and are here to bait us. We won't bite that bait. Sorry.

then you are also willing to conceed that 1st Amendment protections do not apply to any form of electronic communication, or data storage, nor is any modern published political speech except that printed by manual press, correct? And your freedom to practice any faith is limited to only those faiths that were extant in the United States at the time of the signing of the US Constitution, right?

My opinion is that the Framers of the Constitution intended all citizens to the right to equip themselves to the same weapons as would be issued to a standard infantryman (or woman) in the US Army or Marines. In modern terms this might include both automatic and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, pistols, bayonets, and even hand grenades.

You can find clarification on the subject in the Federalist, and anti-Federalist papers.

It's about a concept.

The Second Amendment mentions "arms." Which we are told constantly are guns.

It was a mistake for them to phrase it that way. No way do I see them approving of citizens having the firepower that some gun fetishists desire.

the right to keep and bear arms is a concept itself.

i could see them approving of citizens having handguns rifles and shotguns...those weapons are just modern day versions of what they had in their time

What is your definition of arms?

David

firearms. It would include also knives, swords, sword-canes, cudgels, saps, pole-arms, cannon, in effect anything that man has ever "armed" himself with as a weapon. And while you may not see them as approving of citizens having a great deal of firepower, the saw no problem with EVERY citizen having the ability to arm themselves with the cutting-edge and highest powered weapons of the day......

We have voluntarily chosen to limit ourselves to non-crew served weapons (and yes, this includes nukes); long guns with rifled barrels no greater than .5 inches in diameter, smooth-bore weapons with a barrel length less than 18", and foregone explosives. I'd say that's a hell of a concession myself.

It was intentional. Arms have changed over time.

The founding fathers were well aware of that fact.

In just the preceding 300 years they saw arms going from mainly spears to swords to bows to crossbows to primitive firearms to the "state of the art" muskets.

They could have said the "Right to Keep and Bear Muskets" however like most of the Constitution they weren't looking to provide specifics but rather a framework.

They felt that citizens should be armed. As technology changes the arms of the citizen would change. They strongly (and we have failed on this front) believed in no large standing army so the citizens would be the bulwark of any defense of the nation. Forcing citizens to be forever armed with inadequate arms would be a foolish concept.

Just as freedom of speech is a concept and the methods have changed over time RKBA is a concept and the methods have changed over time.

Initially there were no laws making what we now carry "open carry" either legal or illegal. It was just assumed that citizens would carry arms. The first "gun control laws" made hiding a weapon illegal. There was no concept of lawful "conceal carry".

It is only a relatively recent development (40-60 years depending on the area of the country) that was guns became unPC and laws restricting lawful citizens from carrying in the open began appearing. Then as a compromise "conceal carry" laws began to appear because it is less frightening for the sheeple.

which gives the military a distinct adavantage over the people, should a fight arise between the two groups.

:rofl:

No thanks on that. Heller has ruled that you can’t interpret the 2nd Amendment like that anymore than you can the other ones. So I don’t even have to debate with you on this issue, because the courts overrule your opinion.

And for your being pompous about it, like saying “gun owners fear the boogieman” let me be pompous right back. Lots and lots and lots of people are buying guns, mainly the semi-automatic military look-a-likes that you call “assault weapons”. That’s just to damned bad for you, because even if you could ban them, which you can’t because you don’t have the votes, we already own them……..too late.

Of course then you are going to say “why do we need them”, again, too late, we already own them so there is no need to justify them. But let me give you a really really pompous answer. You want a justification for owing “assault weapons”? Here’s a perfectly legal reason that will piss you off: Because they are cool-looking. There is nothing more fun than taking a semi-automatic rifle that looks badass because it looks military, going to the gun range, setting up bowling pins, and “playing Rambo”. How’s that for pompous for ya?

But I guess the main point is, it doesn’t matter what you think. The courts think differently than you, and there are enough Blue-Dogs in Congress to side with the GOP to pass pro-gun legislation and screw anti-gun legislation. We win. You lose.

I see that a lot here what does n/t stand for?

Still don't get it. Why do you need to mention and abbreviate, no less that there is no further text. Why not just leave an empty space there?

:toast:

to the internet, phones, loudspeakers, hell even telegraphs. They didn't have those things either.

No printers other than hand operated ones.

Surely they never expected freedom of speech to be so easy, available, and effective as it is now. Nothing more than your lungs or a (quill) pen and parchment.

could we first get any agents of our government, potentially hostile foreign governments, and any criminal or potential future criminal out there to first agree to only use flintlocks or less?

3rd amendment says no quartering of soldiers in private houses during times of peace. Does that only apply to log homes? Homes without electricity or indoor plumbing?

Or

8th, regarding no excessive bail, etc. Bail amounts being set today would surely have been considered excessive back then.

Or even

1st, regading freedom of religion, of speech, of the press etc. Does that only apply to speech as they knew it back then, cause that olde english sounds kinda funky today. And many of todays religions didn't exist back then, or didn't exist in todays form.

Our homes have changed, and are still protected. Our economy has changed, and bails have changed to keep pace. Our language an religions have changed, but few say that's cause to stop protecting them.

I see no reason that guns should be treated any differently.

200 years ago were the state of the art. So, inkeeping with your logic, citzens should be entitled to state-of-the-art weaponry today as well. I like it!

the 1st amendment does not apply to the internet. or electronic publishing
the 4th amendment does not apply to phone calls or computer disk contents.

As others have said, civil rights are about principles not technology.

The first protects speech even though the founders never imagined the internet.

The second protects keeping and bearing arms even though the founders never imagined a AR-15.

etc. etc.

Because that's exactly what would happen.


David

smoothbore rife. The Girandoni Repeating Rifle. The original 'assault rifle'.

Meriwhether Lewis carried one on the famed Lewis and Clark expedition.

Please consult a history book on armaments and try again.

GM and Chrysler could make horse drawn carriages. Think of all the lives that would be saved by eliminating auto accidents. Think of all the tax payer dollars that could be saved because we wouldn't need new roads. We wouldn't have to import oil to make gasoline for cars.

Mass transient would be a stage coach. U-haul trucks would be Conestoga wagons.

No trains and no planes. The forefathers would have never considered such technology possible.







Would all the horse shit cause environmental problems?

In the middle of PA, horses and the carriages they draw are in common use by a religious group called the Amish. We have a fairly brisk farrier trade as well. While irritating, I assure that "road apples" are not that big a deal :D

When I was younger I had a lead foot and a fast car. (Another item the original framers never considered.)

I had to be very careful when I was in Amish country. When you're running hot and flying low, those carriages come up fast.

"Modern day weapons are not what they had in mind when they granted common-folk the right to bear them."

Really? You were there? You saw them write a constitution guaranteeing certain rights, and watched as they added the caveat that it's only god until the "weapons" are better?

You feel that technology invalidates the ideals of the constitution? Your logic is damn scary, because it calls into question all the rights and can be applied to any portion of the constitution. If you think it's ok start changing that particular document such in meaningful ways then say so. Our Founders had no way to see the future but they had a pretty damn good idea of what rights Americans would need to stay free, and the 2nd amendment is part and parcel with that..

-Peter

a very important point.
"Modern day weapons are not what they had in mind when they granted common-folk the right to bear them."

The important word is #14 "common-folk". This person is an elitist who does not believe that the general public has a right to posses the means to defend themselves. That the "common-folk " are not well educated, and are not to be trusted with firearms.
However I would hazard a guess that HE,being above the level of"common-folk" should be able to protect himself against us.

Just a thought.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

As opposed to the intellectually dishonest position you seem to be taking.

So then do you only have the free speech they had 200 years ago? You don't have a right to say anything on the internet, phone, radio, or other electronic communication. Ban CNN, MSNBC, ABC, all radio, and that's ok with you? If you want to sound off on your opinion you get to stand on an actual soapbox and yell as loud as you can. Surely our forefathers never intended to confer the power to speak instantaneously to the entire world to ordinary individuals, right?

the writers of the Bill of Rights felt that ALL of them are equally important, and that the right to defend one's life, own and posess weapons, was the SECOND after only freedom of speech?
The argument by the OP is ridiculous - If you dont approve of guns, you certainly free to not have any. Don't deny the rights of others based on your opinion. You are exactly the same as the fundies who would make us all like them or for example the Taliban.

mark

riiiiiiight...



That's a side by side 20 gauge blackpowder shotgun, and it will kill you as dead at 10 yards as any modern sawed-off.

:toast: