The would be mass killer back when the 2nd Amendment was conceived....

[WillParkinson]

[former9thward]

1. This is what the 1st amendment was written for.

The administration claims the Orlando killer was radicalized by the internet. Should we censor the internet?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

7. When are you going to drop the act?

That's a better question.

[appal_jack]

10. I will use speech on the internet to correct your error regarding 18th-Century weapons

Semi automatic air rifles did in fact exist back then. These were not Daisy Red Riders either:

http://blog.catherinedelors.com/air-guns-the-automatic-weapons-of-the-18th-century/

As the above article notes, these semi-auto weapons of the late 1700's were sufficiently deadly to be fielded by the Austrian military, and to provide protection to the Lewis & Clark Expedition across the entire continent.



Who needs 'to drop the act' again?

-app

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. You're apparently confused as to who you are replying to

I didn't start the OP, nor was I addressing you.

[appal_jack]

16. You're apparently confused about the nature of DU...

This is a discussion board. I will discuss issues here as I see fit, thank you. If you want a private conversation, there is this thing called e-mail...

-app

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. You're also free to not make any lick of sense

You're welcome.

[appal_jack]

20. "all the best people are entirely bonkers"

[Herman4747]

53. That particular quote was NOT from Alice...

...it was said to Alice by one of the queens.

[appal_jack]

71. True. Best suitable graphic I could find, though. nt

[jberryhill]

27. The rate of fire of the Girandoni non-firearm was...?

And how many shots could one get off before having to pump it 1500 times?

[Marengo]

69. That would depend on how many pre charged reservoirs the shooter was carrying.

As has been explained to you before, the reservoirs were detachable, interchangeable, and capable of being charged independent of the riffle. The magazine capacity was 22 rounds.

[beevul]

28. There was also the puckle gun...

As well as the privately owned cannons and warships *gasp* weapons of war.

[pintobean]

12. and

[treestar]

19. No one's arguing that.

[stevenleser]

23. Doesnt translate to a good metaphor at all.

The right to bear arms was never absolute and never meant to go beyond the state militia. The founding fathers never intended that to go beyond a musket to even other arms of the day like a cannon let alone to what we have now. You have the right to A gun, but not necessarily ANY gun.

On the other hand, freedom of speech was extended to every kind of writing or speaking available at the time, letters, speeches, books, newspapers, etc.

[former9thward]

70. Nice theory.

But it doesn't fit any of the facts surrounding the writing of the Constitution and addition of the Bill of Rights.

[Rex]

75. It was a sad dodge, not clever at all.

I think the embarrassment of the actual situation in the cartoon got the better of that poster. As you can see, their reply to you is a non-answer as well.

[jmowreader]

79. Privately-owned artillery units were not unknown during the Revolution

If a rich man wanted to raise his own artillery battery, he was completely within his rights to buy cannons and recruit crews to man them.

[Rex]

74. "The administration claims the Orlando killer was radicalized by the internet."

Amazing dodging skills you have, that must have been painful to type.

[leveymg]

2. A sword would have been most effective at close range in 1787.

Right to keep and bear arms seems to apply to muskets and bayonets, not AR-15s, which are far deadlier than even cannons of that day. I don't think too many individuals were allowed (or inclined) to possess 8-pounders, even in the 18th Century.

[Marengo]

4. What were muskets and bayonets in that time?

[haele]

14. During that era, a soldier or militia member who trained regularly could load and fire 2x a minute.

The really good musketeers could load and fire 3 times a minute.

Muskets of the Revolutionary/late 18th century up through the early 19th century period looked similar to a mid-sized rifle; not those big bell-mouthed mini-cannons found in the 16th century, but a flintlock stock with a long barrel to help intensify the force and better direct the trajectory of the ball before it left the barrel. Rifling for a firearm barrel is a fairly modern invention - off the top of my head, I believe it was the late 1820's...certainly post Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. I seem to remember that rifles were not commonly available to the general public until well into the 1860's/1870's.
But even with an early rifle, you still had to take the time to load with powder, wad, and ball (talk to a black-powder or Civil War re-enactor sometime) until the percussion cap became standardized in the 1830's for specialty rifles. Hunters and trappers typically used black powder because they couldn't afford those specialty rifles that used percussion cap rounds. as So even during the Civil War, most infantry men could only fire 2, 3 times a minute.

A bayonet was good for a short distance/hand-to hand fighting weapon, sort of like a short spear or lance. It allowed you to use your musket either as a staff weapon to keep an enemy with a sword or dagger off you, or as a spearing/slashing weapon.
You only fixed your bayonet after the enemy got too close to reload the musket and continue fire. Otherwise, you'd f'up the balance of your musket (or rifle) and risk wasting precious powder and shot.

Pistols, now. At the turn of the 18th century, anyone who could afford a pistol usually got two to four pistols - that typically needed to be pre-loaded if the person was going out. There was a reasons pistols were used more for dueling or when going out looking for trouble than just "for home or day-to-day protection". 18th century pistols were very fiddly and prone to going out of balance or throwing off the pistol's aim if carried around out in the weather for any great period of time. Most pistols were kept and carried in cases to protect them.
Because they were so fiddly and a pain in the ass to maintain, a pistol was considered a gentleman's weapon, so an officer in a militia was usually the only one to carry a pistol - he was assumed to be a "gentleman". The average militia man or the day typically kept a musket, or if he was lucky later on, a rifle. Or slings - which were often used in settlements for small game hunting and from what I was told, in several "frontier" militias as back-up when they ran out of ammo. In the hands of a trained slinger, a sling was both more rapid-fire (reports of 5 a minute) and could be as lethal as a pistol or a rifle up to a good 50 yards in distance. And much easier to re-arm with - any dense rock of decent size would do.

Pistols were always handled very carefully so as not to get the powder wet or lose the ball before you fired - and if you left a loaded pistol laying about, the powder would go bad or your pan would get dirty and it wouldn't fire.
The replacement for the powder and ball pistol was the slightly more reliable percussion cap revolver - which was still not really a viable weapon for the general public until the late 1850's. That was 20 years after Colt invented his revolver, as revolvers were such a high-priced specialty item that very few people could afford until he could sell the military on the weapon after the Mexican-American war and the Army contracted a manufacturer to tool up and mass-produce it at cost.
Cartridge bullets, which is what we would now recognize as bullets, allowed the revolver to evolve into what we recognize as a pistol/revolver now.

So, yeah - it's hard to say whether or not the thought and wording of the 2nd Amendment's granting of the right to have and bear a fairly expensive and very difficult to acquire, keep and maintain piece of lethal equipment that was understood to be a critical tool for anyone who lived outside a major city or town as it was written the 1790's was really understood and applicable with the ease and relatively low cost of acquiring, keeping, or maintain firearms as they are now-a-days. The expectations and understanding of what it meant to own a firearm back in the late 17th century/early 18th century has changed. And not necessarily for the better.

Ah, the joys of being and hanging around re-enactors in my youth. I remember the black powder fire-arms exhibitions and contests of the 70's and 80's very well.

Haele

[leveymg]

25. How much of that did you recycle?

The fact is, the Founding Fathers did not have original intent to constitutionally protect 21st Century semi-automatic weapons except for military and police purposes, what they quaintly termed "well-regulated militias."

[jmg257]

39. Too bad those militias were made from the body of the people...

The peoples' rights and duty screwed it up for eveyone.

So much so the people at large are still called "militia" today.

[jmg257]

40. Are you familiar with the Militia Act of 1792?

Pretty specific about how the people were to arm themselves for militia service.

Which of course shows quite clearly the intent of the militia clauses, and the 2nd.

[haele]

42. Yes, every able-bodied male citizen was a member of the militia.

And they were expected to drill with some regularity, keep and many maintain at least one musket and a specified amount of ammunition for drilled and in the event they were called by the state to be part of the militia.
Of course, I can Google particulars if you're really interested because it's been a couple decades since I've really immersed myself in the early American studies. But since I've already been accused of regurgitating talking points when I was recounting information I learned through interactions with people who were also interested in the social history of the time instead of just the guns of the time, I'll leave this discussion.

Haele

[leveymg]

47. Unless you were enrolled in the militia, you couldn't keep and bear 8-pounders.

Why should it be any different with AR-15s?

[jmg257]

50. Interesting - (though a bit irrelevant) What laws mandated you couldn't own 8-pounders?

Because US Code mandates that the people at large are the "militia".

Sure it was intended we would all be well-trained and well-armed, but the people and Congress have chosen to re-create the organized state militias into the NG. They do however still identify the people as militia. And the 2nd & militia clauses still exist, so our right to keep and bear arms, especially as part of a militia, still exists...and for that purpose - what better arm then an AR (barring select fire)?

[leveymg]

51. As a matter of law, adult males were enrolled in militia, as a matter of practice, cannon were

unavailable except from Gov't surplus or armories, and their sale were also regulated.

[jmg257]

52. Agreed. The people were to supply themselves with personal arms,

while the states would supply adequate field pieces.


And so as the USSC in Miller ruled - the 2nd guarantees the citizens' right to arms with some reasonable relationship to the preservation/efficiency of well-regulated militias.

[leveymg]

54. That's how I read it, as well. But, there's an additional twist.

Since most militias were at the time formed by the States, it was essentially a guarantee that each State would retain the right to keep and control its own armed forces. That rationale essentially went out in 1957 with the nationalization of the Arkansas National Guards and the Courts' upholding of that after Little Rock. Therefore, I would argue, the 2nd lost its reason for being and relevance half a century ago.

[sarisataka]

55. Wouldn't that reasoning

rather make the organization of the National Guard unconstitutional? The Federal government seized control of the militias which were guaranteed to the states?

[jmg257]

58. It does seem the creation of the NG was a usurption of power - the Congress was given powers

over well-defined well-understood entities, which predated the constitution. They were to come up with guidelines, and were not given power to recreate or create new "militia(s)".

However, the Congress ARE representatives of we the people, so the people are OK with it.

[sarisataka]

60. Is that what will allow us

To run roughshod over the Fifth Amendment? Because we the people are okay with that? What happens if/when a republican is in the White House and we are not okay with that?

[jmg257]

63. Yes, if enough of the people demand it - then it would come down to the supreme court

ruling in subsequent challenges.

Madison knew where the chief danger lied, not just with govt usurption, but he still thought a Bill of Rights proper:

In Virginia, I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current...
In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.
...
1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.

2. Altho' it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community

I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public.

[sarisataka]

64. You are correct

In that it is possible to violate people's rights. What I find sad is Democrats, who have typically stood up for those oppressed, are the ones advocating simple ignoring of the Constitution, and the rights protected, for political expediency.

[jmg257]

65. Yes - agreed, it is sad...well-intentioned as it may be. nt

[leveymg]

59. Tell that to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Yes, it was the effective end of States Rights.

[jmg257]

56. "the 2nd lost its reason for being and relevance half a century ago." NOW we are talking!

I too think once we the people decided the constitutional militias of the several states were NOT necessary, were NOT the best security, the primary purpose of the 2nd became a bit obsolete.

I look into the 1957 stuff - not well aware of all that.

Cheers.

[leveymg]

57. Look up "Little Rock, September 24, 1957", the date Eisenhower nationalized the Ark Nat'l Guard

That was effectively the end of State Rights, as well.

[Marengo]

66. Former F&I reenactor here. I put together a RN land detachment impression...

Like the sailors with Braddock's force. Cutlass, sea service musket, and decent slops. I actually wanted to do 44 RF hatman, but couldn't find the uniform in the quality or accuracy I wanted at the price I could afford. The regimental lace was basically non-existent and without that, an accurate portrayal is not possible.

[haele]

68. I used to do needle, pillow, and crochet lace along with tatting for 15th to 18th cent costumes.

My Great-aunt China used to do the most exquisite crochet lace (she would crochet using button twist and make tiny multi-colored flower bouquets for collar appliques the size of a thumb-nail in a 1/2 hour!), and she was equally proficient on quilting, hoop embroidery and figure/cut-out work - she would help her friend and work part-time at the studios on some of the big-budget costume dramas during the '40's and '50's.
She babysat us until I was 9 and we moved to Seattle - and taught me hand stitching and lace-making - mostly Victorian and pre-WWII work. Didn't really matter, hand techniques hadn't changed that much over the centuries.
Found a couple museum and stage costume pattern books, and since I had a lot of time on my hands when not on duty, I was very popular amongst a wide range of reenactors when stationed in SoCal. While I started off with the SCA and RenFaire crowd, I was quickly asked to participate in all sorts of other groups once they saw what I was doing.

18th century Tassels and Frogs require a lot of knot-expertise and you really need to build your own silk skein cord to properly create the braids, knots and tassels. Were you able to get an old-timer to twist the skeins into cords properly for you?
Sounds like you had fun. I always enjoyed trying to reproduce the work by hand.
It's hard not to snicker when someone uses mauve dye and claims it's a period color...

Haele

[Just reading posts]

6. You're incorrect regarding private ownership of cannons.

There were privately owned warships armed with cannons, and merchant vessels were routinely armed with cannons.

[Xithras]

13. Yep. Private ownership of cannons was legal, but uncommon due to their expense.

Still is legal, for what it's worth. You can go to any number of websites and STILL buy a fully operational cannon today. Genuine, firable cannons will generally set you back $15,000-$25,000 and are just as lethal today as they were 200 years ago.

Can't buy explosive ordinance though, that's illegal. Solid shot only.

[leveymg]

49. As there was no other source than Army surplus, one had to request purchase from the Gov't

Most of those who purchased Civil War surplus cannons were veterans organizations, municipalities, and a few individuals who usually requested them through the Office of their Congressman. In other words, the trade in military ordinance was tightly regulated, as was issuance of Letters of Marque to owners of Armed Merchantships. Here's how it actually worked: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16omds/were_there_any_historical_restrictions_on_private/

All of the records I dealt with were from the later nineteenth century and early twentieth century, and concerned almost exclusively civil-war era cannon that was no longer needed. There were huge stores of cannon, mortars, etc that had been created for (and sometimes used) in the civil war that became obsolete after the war ended and decades passed. The department of war/arsenal's themselves were keen to pass on this cannon as long as the cost for transportation was borne by the requester.

A select few letters came from individuals who wished to procure cannon for decorative purposes themselves, but there were a substantial number of private organizations like the Grand Army of the Republic who requested these cannon for ceremonial purposes, too. The requests usually came via a congressman who made the formal request on their behalf. One such G.A.R. request is in the letter below.

[leveymg]

48. Are you familiar with the fact that the US Government registered these armed merchantships?

They were essentially auxilliary Navy vessels, and their owners received a charter. Google: Letters of Marque

[Rex]

77. LOL. If they do that they might learn about privateers and pirates!

I mean ahem profiteers...you know, those scallywags of the sea lanes! Google: History You Should Already Know

[leveymg]

80. Or how the US privatized foreign policy and legalized piracy 225 years before Blackwater

and Halliburton. This isn't part of the approved Core Curriculum.

[Rex]

81. I bet some people would pass out if they knew foreign nationals fought in Uncle Sam's army!

And that most serve in the Caribbean! You know...the place where Jack Sparrow sailed the Black Pearl! I think a lot of learning be done in front of the idiot box. Arrgggg!!!

[Rex]

76. The cartoons accuracy evidently has some vexed.

Those darn facts. Why do people have to keep bringing them up?

[Initech]

3. Could you imagine Tony Montana in those times?

[Just reading posts]

5. ...you said, exercising your 1st Amendment rights with 21st Century technology.

If the Constitution doesn't apply to any technology in advance of that which existed in the 18th Century, does the 1st Amendment not apply to radio, television, and the internet?

This really is one of the sillier anti-gun memes out there.

[Wednesdays]

8. I keep trying to load bullets into the Internet

But it just never works.

[treestar]

18. you think this is some great argument

it is not. The First Amendment is about something completely different. The technology enhances it. With guns it kills more people because guns are a different thing.

[Shandris]

22. No, it actually is a good argument.

The argument is that since only 'x' firearms were available when the Constitution was written, then "The founders could not have known what it would be used for! They never would have done that!" 'The technology enhances it!' would actually destroy your point, as the amendment (2nd) wasn't written under the basis of "One of these is positive and one is negative, and we only want one of these things to benefit from technology!". In fact, in providing for defense of the states, only an ignorant fool would think that the Constitution would limit it's own essential army to weapons that would never change past what the Founders had. Seriously. Who's the bright individual that wants to assert to me that the militia, 'necessary to the security of a free state', should equip the oldest and weakest weapons possible in order to defend itself?

But the former line of reasoning (that they only intended muskets) does mean that it would be an applicable standard to other freedoms granted under the same circumstances. As the first and second amendments both recount uses and freedoms, it is consistent to apply the same measure.

I know it's popular to think you can just change the measure for anything you want, but it really doesn't work that way. I mean...you can, as long as you have sufficient force to enforce it (see that? that's not an accident of words.), but most rational people not looking to craft their own law or interpretation of law will look at you askance when you start changing the definitions for things only as they suit you.

[stevenleser]

24. It's a terrible argument. You couldn't own a cannon back then which shows how even then, the

second amendment was very restricted.

Freedom of speech and the press, however, was extended to every possible technology of the day.

[beevul]

29. Nonsense.

You couldn't own a cannon back then...

Nonsense. See letters of marque and reprisal, and more particularly, who they were issued to.

There were many privately owned warships and yes, privately owned cannons in that day, and the framers were well aware of their destructive power.

[stevenleser]

30. Letters of marque and reprisal reinforce my point. Do you know what did it take to get one?

It literally took an act of congress as per the Constitution. It was not an inherent right.

Not only did letters of Marque and Reprisal require congressional authorization, in every instance, congress got the President to sign off.

There is a good fictional book called Balance of Power that discusses the potential use of a Letter of Marque in modern times that also goes into their historical use.

[beevul]

31. No, they really don't.

Letters of marque and reprisal reinforce my point. Do you know what did it take to get one?

It literally took an act of congress as per the Constitution. It was not an inherent right.

Not only did letters of Marque and Reprisal require congressional authorization, in every instance, congress got the President to sign off.

You appear confused. Letters of marque and reprisal were not "permission to be armed", so what it took to get one is completely beside the point.

They were "permission to use force against certain targets", and they were issued only to those who were capable of using force of arms - those who were armed accordingly.

Privateers, in part. I trust you know what those were?

[stevenleser]

33. Yes they really do. The right to bear arms is a personal right, not a right of a ship.

Even today you can load cannons on board a ship and it will have nothing to do with the second amendment.

The right to use those cannons offensively required an act of congress.

All of which has nothing to do with the second amendment and doesnt help the fact that the metaphor that was made between the second and first amendment doesnt hold.

[beevul]

36. But it DOES hold.

The argument amounts to "the framers couldn't have envisioned it therefore it must be ok to ban", as applied to guns, and it can quite aptly be applied to anything else.

Thats plenty valid Steve.

[Straw Man]

43. The right?

The right to use those cannons offensively required an act of congress.

I'm glad to see that we've identified the distinction between possessing a weapon and using it in anger. Certainly law has the right to regulate the latter.

So can we conclude, then, that owning a cannon did not require an act of Congress?

[X_Digger]

34. Bullshit, canons, on merchant ships or carts, were privately owned. Who told you this horseshit? n/t

[Just reading posts]

32. So, let me get this straight....

21st Century technology is covered by the 1st Amendment, because it enhances it as compared to 18th Century technology.

Whereas 21st Century technology isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn't enhance it as compared to 18th Century technology?

[stevenleser]

35. Nope. An amendment that was meant to be restrictive was erroneously compared to one that wasnt.

The end.

[beevul]

37. They're both meant to be restrictive, of government...

They're both meant to be restrictive, of government, and it very plainly says so in the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

[Just reading posts]

38. Neither the 1st nor the 2nd Amendment restrict rights, they both protect them.

Really the end.

[jmg257]

41. The whole purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the effeciency of the militias.

They had to be effective, the militias served very vital roles for securing our freedoms.

The people - well armed and well trained -w/ commonality of arms, effective - organized, armed, and disciplined.

[X_Digger]

72. Back to 10th grade civics with you.

First lesson? The preamble to the Bill of Rights:


[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

[Crabby Appleton]

9. This was the rapid-fire assault weapon back then

a skilled archer could get off a shot every few seconds

[Angel Martin]

21. mass murder 17th Century style

[Straw Man]

44. Guy Fawkes ...

... and the Gunpowder Plot?

[Angel Martin]

45. yes nt

[underpants]

26. Excellent

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

61. Historically mass killers were poisoners

[alarimer]

62. It says nothing about ammunition, so I say ban it and all components.

Then guns are just expensive clubs.

[jmg257]

73. Hey now there's a novel idea!

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8 2

[Rex]

78. NRA survey says

Not fair! Not fair!