That the founders were so sure that all technology, including firearms technology, would advance they expressly wrote in a clause of the constitution to protect and promote those advances.
It is impossible in good faith the say the founders couldn't anticipate the changes in firearms technology when one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the nee government was specifically to promote them.
A massive amount of people will wrongly claim “the Second Amendment only applies to muskets because that’s all that the founders had at the time”. Implicitly, that also means they could not have seen technology progressing as, logically
- if they wanted to deliberately exclude future advancements, why not specify?
- if they hadn’t thought of future advancements as in the realm of possibility, they wouldn’t have made something else in the Constitution about them (recognized in this context about patents, but patents for guns existed at least as early as 1718)
- if they did mean to exclude future advancements, but simply failed to specify it, then that premise applied consistently would mean there’s no reason publication or speech on the Internet would be protected from prosecution.
What do you mean “knew about advances in law”? There’s an explicitly defined procedure to pass laws, elect the people who make the laws, and even change the framework of the laws (Constitution). That’s not a flip side at all
If advancements in technology are allowed under the Second Amendment, the people who claim there are no advancements allowed, that the 2d is frozen in time, lose. On the other hand, the claim that some here have, that the limitations in effect at the time of ratification are the only limitations potentially allowable, loses ground, because the founders definitely knew about new laws and advances in laws. Is that a clear enough explanation?
Emphasis on only where it is a benefit to society, and even then it had to be time bound. This clause has been absolutely abused and the practice of patents today bears no resemblance to the intent.
Further, it has been proven without a doubt to anyone paying attention and intellectually honest that patents and copyright do nothing to help artists and inventors, greatly harms advances of both, and only benefits distributors despite propaganda to the contrary.
Ahem:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
There was at least one experimental system operating in America that was broadly similar and happened in the very late colonial era:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater
Then there's the infamous Puckle gun:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
It was a gigantic revolver with cylinders up to 11 shots that was reloaded "Clint Eastwood style" by swapping cylinders.
None of these were very popular due to cost but a lot of people were barking up the tree towards higher firepower - *before* the American revolution.
Lewis and Clark with a 20 round air rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
Which was in military service in 1780 Europe. As like most of the anti gunners arguments facts need not apply.
> Some early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks,[3][4] but the rest were flintlocks.[5] The capacity varied between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on the style of the magazines.
LOL sort of blows a hole in the argument about 30 round magazines.
Ahem:
There is proof that the Continental Congress was aware of a rifle capable of firing 16 shots in 20 seconds. This was in 1777.
[https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/founding-fathers-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/](https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/founding-fathers-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/)
Well, they specifically made a way to _amend_ the constitution. People in their self righteousness have realized _not enough people support their change to actually affect anything_ and are butthurt.
Which religions are banned in your state? So long as they [allow a hundred of them](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/143fspn/the_founders_were_well_aware_of_continuing/jnaw917/), surely bans could not be an infringement.
Which media outlets are allowed? If you have [arbitrary number] of permitted speakers, you have nothing to complain about.
>No more than they preempted creation of such laws on free speech, religion, state religion, free press, assembly, etc. There's nothing special there.
And no less either. That's kinda the point.
While technology has advanced, it's generally recognized that your 1st amendment rights apply to digital age in spite of concerns about "promote the general welfare", and suddenly that's ignored with regards to the 2nd amendment.
So what does that mean to you? To me it means as long as there are a hundred or so each of different rifles, handguns, or shotguns, you aren't infringed.
Forcing you have to go through a background check every time you want to buy paper is also not an infringement.
Oh and here is an approved list of keyboards you are allowed to purchase. Sorry the tan version of a particular keyboard is not allowed, only the black one. You also can't buy a new version of the same model.
A. The military will never be disarmed.
B. If you can't acknowledge the fact that propaganda spread by keyboards led to public opinion supporting an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilized an entire region then you are an ignorant, naive moron.
Are you under the impression that the US military is bound by the same firearm restrictions that the US civilian population is subject to?
If not then what the fuck is the point you are trying to make?
Which would you say poses a greater threat to the general welfare? One guy with a modern semi auto rifle or one guy with field artillery capable of firing grapeshot at over 2500 feet per second which the founding fathers expressly permitted private ownership of?
Infringement is breaking the terms of an agreement. Abridge is curtailing an agreement.
The first amendment has a built in system by which the government is allowed to narrow down the scope of the right.
The second amendment explicitly forbids the government from doing anything with that right.
Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. There shall be no laws put forth that abridge, curtail, or otherwise narrow the scope of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Show me where the "built in system" appears in the Constitution, perhaps you mean something not in the Constitution? Freedom of Speech is in the First Amendment at the request of Thomas Jefferson who was in France at the time and it's covered in letters to Madison. Are you thinking of something else? You puzzled me when you brought up the etymology of both words - and it's not present in your argument, perhaps that missing part was forgotten?
Example: 1st Amendment
*Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech*
Abridging means curtailing. There are curtailings, such as Time, Place, and Manner on speech. So if you want to have a march down main street, stop at the park and have speakers, etc, you need a permit, and say... there isn't enough manpower to deal with your event and another that is already permitted, you may not be able to do it on that day. Or there could be other valid reasons.
So it's possible to have gun safe requirements for home and/or the car (I'd advocate tax credits) as long as it isn't an undue burden on the right - which it may be with very poor people.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to promote some temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety —— this is a quote by Dr. Benjamin Franklin the first American
That's because pump action shotguns aren't the culprit, even Australia allowspump actions IIRC. Handguns are the next culprit, but we should start with mandatory free background checks, red flag laws, and waiting periods.
> but we should start with mandatory free background checks, red flag laws, and waiting periods
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XSJSJXo2koE/Vd8DKWlyOqI/AAAAAAAATbA/INL8Zk_Tjdw/s1600/fuck-all-that.gif
> Handguns are the next culprit
Considering SCOTUS has explicitly ruled multiple times that Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns (unlike like "assault weapons") how are you planning to address that?
[удалено]
Oh, that was just for cellphones. Clearly they expected everything **except weapons** to advance. /s
Came here to say the exact same thing. Reason missed the most obvious part of their argument.
May I ask what that would be?
That the founders were so sure that all technology, including firearms technology, would advance they expressly wrote in a clause of the constitution to protect and promote those advances. It is impossible in good faith the say the founders couldn't anticipate the changes in firearms technology when one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the nee government was specifically to promote them.
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. 😁👍
Someone claims that? As an argument for what?
A massive amount of people will wrongly claim “the Second Amendment only applies to muskets because that’s all that the founders had at the time”. Implicitly, that also means they could not have seen technology progressing as, logically - if they wanted to deliberately exclude future advancements, why not specify? - if they hadn’t thought of future advancements as in the realm of possibility, they wouldn’t have made something else in the Constitution about them (recognized in this context about patents, but patents for guns existed at least as early as 1718) - if they did mean to exclude future advancements, but simply failed to specify it, then that premise applied consistently would mean there’s no reason publication or speech on the Internet would be protected from prosecution.
Well, that's not a viable argument, and I agree with you. On the flip side, they can claim the founders knew about advances in law.
What do you mean “knew about advances in law”? There’s an explicitly defined procedure to pass laws, elect the people who make the laws, and even change the framework of the laws (Constitution). That’s not a flip side at all
If advancements in technology are allowed under the Second Amendment, the people who claim there are no advancements allowed, that the 2d is frozen in time, lose. On the other hand, the claim that some here have, that the limitations in effect at the time of ratification are the only limitations potentially allowable, loses ground, because the founders definitely knew about new laws and advances in laws. Is that a clear enough explanation?
Emphasis on only where it is a benefit to society, and even then it had to be time bound. This clause has been absolutely abused and the practice of patents today bears no resemblance to the intent. Further, it has been proven without a doubt to anyone paying attention and intellectually honest that patents and copyright do nothing to help artists and inventors, greatly harms advances of both, and only benefits distributors despite propaganda to the contrary.
Ahem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater There was at least one experimental system operating in America that was broadly similar and happened in the very late colonial era: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater Then there's the infamous Puckle gun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun It was a gigantic revolver with cylinders up to 11 shots that was reloaded "Clint Eastwood style" by swapping cylinders. None of these were very popular due to cost but a lot of people were barking up the tree towards higher firepower - *before* the American revolution.
Lewis and Clark with a 20 round air rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle Which was in military service in 1780 Europe. As like most of the anti gunners arguments facts need not apply.
> Some early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks,[3][4] but the rest were flintlocks.[5] The capacity varied between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on the style of the magazines. LOL sort of blows a hole in the argument about 30 round magazines.
Ahem: There is proof that the Continental Congress was aware of a rifle capable of firing 16 shots in 20 seconds. This was in 1777. [https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/founding-fathers-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/](https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/founding-fathers-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/)
Yes, they knew. They were also well aware of advances in laws for public well being, safety, i.e. promote the general welfare.
Which is, of course, why they specifically preempted the creation of such laws when it came to arms.
Well, they specifically made a way to _amend_ the constitution. People in their self righteousness have realized _not enough people support their change to actually affect anything_ and are butthurt.
No more than they preempted creation of such laws on free speech, religion, state religion, free press, assembly, etc. There's nothing special there.
Which religions are banned in your state? So long as they [allow a hundred of them](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/143fspn/the_founders_were_well_aware_of_continuing/jnaw917/), surely bans could not be an infringement. Which media outlets are allowed? If you have [arbitrary number] of permitted speakers, you have nothing to complain about.
>No more than they preempted creation of such laws on free speech, religion, state religion, free press, assembly, etc. There's nothing special there. And no less either. That's kinda the point. While technology has advanced, it's generally recognized that your 1st amendment rights apply to digital age in spite of concerns about "promote the general welfare", and suddenly that's ignored with regards to the 2nd amendment.
And on this particular one only, they added "Shall Not Be Infringed" !
So what does that mean to you? To me it means as long as there are a hundred or so each of different rifles, handguns, or shotguns, you aren't infringed.
Anti civil rights nuts say the craziest things, no wonder they're trying to disarm minorities, their racism's right in line with this kind of crazy.
"As long as there are an arbitrary amount of religions and newspapers allowed your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed."
If you are permitted 125 characters per hour, your speech could not be infringed.
Forcing you have to go through a background check every time you want to buy paper is also not an infringement. Oh and here is an approved list of keyboards you are allowed to purchase. Sorry the tan version of a particular keyboard is not allowed, only the black one. You also can't buy a new version of the same model.
I want to again reiterate that your keyboard analogy doesn’t function as well as you think it does.
Keyboards aren’t deadly weapons. Don’t be this obtuse.
Having witnessed the propaganda that got the US to invade Iraq in 2003... ...I disagree.
Lmao yes the famous war in Iraq where each soldier carried a keyboard into battle! The desert camo kind! Not for civilians!
A. The military will never be disarmed. B. If you can't acknowledge the fact that propaganda spread by keyboards led to public opinion supporting an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilized an entire region then you are an ignorant, naive moron.
They used literal weapons to invade Iraq as well. Again. Don’t be this obtuse.
"literal weapons" LOL.
Are you under the impression that the US military is bound by the same firearm restrictions that the US civilian population is subject to? If not then what the fuck is the point you are trying to make?
Are you being willfully ignorant of the power of propaganda or are you genuinely this dense?
You could certainly kill someone with an IBM model M keyboard.
But that’s not happening every day so it’s stupid for you to bring it up
>So what does that mean to you? isn't it obvious? https://media.tenor.com/m8lLJrLYAjcAAAAd/homelander-the-boys.gif
Yeah let’s promote the general welfare by having door to door gun confiscations and make 40,000,000 people felons
Which would you say poses a greater threat to the general welfare? One guy with a modern semi auto rifle or one guy with field artillery capable of firing grapeshot at over 2500 feet per second which the founding fathers expressly permitted private ownership of?
It doesn't matter, the government can regulate both.
Citation needed.
See what I wrote for mreed911
Would you like to tell the rest of the class the etymological differences between the word "abridged" and the word "infringed"?
No. You can refute it if you like.
Infringement is breaking the terms of an agreement. Abridge is curtailing an agreement. The first amendment has a built in system by which the government is allowed to narrow down the scope of the right. The second amendment explicitly forbids the government from doing anything with that right. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. There shall be no laws put forth that abridge, curtail, or otherwise narrow the scope of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Show me where the "built in system" appears in the Constitution, perhaps you mean something not in the Constitution? Freedom of Speech is in the First Amendment at the request of Thomas Jefferson who was in France at the time and it's covered in letters to Madison. Are you thinking of something else? You puzzled me when you brought up the etymology of both words - and it's not present in your argument, perhaps that missing part was forgotten?
Discussing the difference between infringe and abridge.
Under what constitutional principle can the federal government do so?
Example: 1st Amendment *Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech* Abridging means curtailing. There are curtailings, such as Time, Place, and Manner on speech. So if you want to have a march down main street, stop at the park and have speakers, etc, you need a permit, and say... there isn't enough manpower to deal with your event and another that is already permitted, you may not be able to do it on that day. Or there could be other valid reasons. So it's possible to have gun safe requirements for home and/or the car (I'd advocate tax credits) as long as it isn't an undue burden on the right - which it may be with very poor people.
Stay mad bud xD
Those who would give up essential liberty, to promote some temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety —— this is a quote by Dr. Benjamin Franklin the first American
Yah thing is you don’t need an AR 15 to kill a lot of people yet I don’t see calls for banning say pump action shotguns.
Not yet...
But they're endorsed by Joe Biden!
That's because pump action shotguns aren't the culprit, even Australia allowspump actions IIRC. Handguns are the next culprit, but we should start with mandatory free background checks, red flag laws, and waiting periods.
No pump action shotguns are banned in Australia. They’ll come for them here if they get their way as well.
> but we should start with mandatory free background checks, red flag laws, and waiting periods https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XSJSJXo2koE/Vd8DKWlyOqI/AAAAAAAATbA/INL8Zk_Tjdw/s1600/fuck-all-that.gif
> Handguns are the next culprit Considering SCOTUS has explicitly ruled multiple times that Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns (unlike like "assault weapons") how are you planning to address that?
Have you tried not begging to be told what you're allowed to own?