Who's right about the second amendment: Piers Morgan or the gun rights advocate?

[alp227]

A libertarian friend posted this screenshot of twitter posts:



The original link followed by even more responses: http://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/275709039235694592

[TPaine7]

1. Great answer, just what I was thinking before I scrolled down!

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, she could go into the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, by which time repeating weapons were well know. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment applicable against the states.

[Glassunion]

3. Ha!

[elleng]

4. 'Arms'

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[petronius]

5. Morgan is correct in a trivial sense, Roth is correct in the way that matters

Certainly the Framers were envisioning the technology they were aware of - the most modern tools available - when they wrote the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. But they were equally aware that technology would advance and improve in the future.

So while they may not have been able to describe the specific forms that future technology would take, it's irrelevant to a discussion of what the BoR protects: 1A, 2A, 4A apply to the modern and current manifestations of what the Constitution has protected all along...

[TPaine7]

7. "Certainly the Framers were envisioning the technology they were aware of..."

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Not so, unless you include the fact that they were including reasonable descendants of known technologies as well, and even of unknown technologies.

REPEATING weapons were known in the founding era; Lewis and Clark carried a REPEATING weapon on their expedition. Also, any reasonably intelligent writer of a constitution assumes that terms like "freedom of the press" or "arms" will encompass more than the technology that exists when they write. I would think that that would necessarily include, for instance, the internet and stun guns.

They may not have intended "arms" to include things like nukes (or planet destroying molecular disruptors to imagine the future). They may not have intended "freedom of the press" to include a future technology that can impose thoughts on an unwilling mind. But surely they envisioned a natural evolution of arms and communication technology.

Updated: "REPEATING" was "semi-automatic."

[mikeysnot]

6. Carol

it doesn't have to say that, the fact was that that was the type of gun at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

Carol Roth = FAIL.

[TPaine7]

8. Lewis and Clark carried a repeating weapon on their expedition.

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

There were repeating weapons at the founding.

Additionally, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment applicable against the states when repeating weapons were well known.

There is not a big conceptual jump between repeating weapons and semi-automatics, certainly no where close to the difference between one of their printing presses and this forum.

Edited to change "semi-automatic" to "repeating" and remove ironic snark about ignorance of history.

*wipes egg from face*

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Anti-rights arguments...

...are always based on ignorance of some kind.

[mikeysnot]

16. you forgot the sarcas tag.

[PavePusher]

21. And you are flying your ignorance flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

[TPaine7]

22. It appears that "semi-automatic" is too strong a term. But they did carry a repeating rifle,

capable of 20 shots without reloading:

History and use

The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply.

...

The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.[1]

Design and capabilities

The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lbs (4.5 kg), about the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .46 caliber ball[2] at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. This gravity operated design was such that the rifle had to be pointed upwards in order to drop each ball into the breech block. Unlike its contemporary, muzzle-loading muskets, which required the rifleman to stand up to reload with powder and ball, the shooter could reload a ball from the magazine by holding the rifle vertically while laying on his back and operating the ball delivery mechanism. The rifleman then could roll back into position to fire, allowing the rifleman to keep a "low profile". Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 1 in the chamber, 21 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes. Equipment not carried attached to the rifle was held in a special leather knapsack. It was also necessary to keep the leather gaskets of the reservoir moist in order to maintain a good seal and prevent leakage.[3]

The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 150 yards on a full load. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied .[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

So we have a "high capacity" rifle (over 10 rounds) with a "high rate of fire"; the founders would not have been shocked by a modern semi-automatic weapon. The difference between the state of the art rifle then and a modern semi-automatic rifle is certainly less than the difference between their state of the art presses and our internet.

[DonP]

17. "Anti-gun arguments are very often based in ignorance of history." No shortage of that obviously N/T

[Clames]

10. Fail on yourself...

...because the Founders sure as hell didn't envision typing a reply on a globally linked message board when they wrote the First Amendment...

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. 1A protects speech like criticism of the government

as long as it's conducted by shouting at passersby in the street, or posting handbills.

[trouble.smith]

14. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I pray it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Seems fair.

[mikeysnot]

23. The government is the PEOPLE

it just has to be run by the best people not self serving ideologues with an agenda to enrich themselves at everyone expense.

And quoting founding forefathers and as if you knew them personally and applying it to today's problems is lame.

For the others out there on DU thinking they are arming themselves against tyranny and BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT, video for you...

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily-armed and armored bank robbers, Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu, and patrol and SWAT officers of the Los Angeles Police Department in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California on February 28, 1997. It happened when responding patrol officers engaged Phillips and Matasareanu leaving the robbed bank. Seventeen officers and civilians sustained injuries before both robbers were killed. Phillips and Matasareanu had robbed several banks prior to their attempt in North Hollywood and were notorious for their heavy armament, which included automatic rifles.

[gejohnston]

25. they were using automatic weapons

which have been tightly regulated since 1934
The cops had to borrow rifles from a nearby gun store because their pistols and shotguns lacked the range to hit the machine gun wielding robbers. You chose a poor example.

[sarisataka]

26. Wait, I'm missing something here

are you saying criminals acquired and used guns that were virtually banned for over half a century? And that they were only stopped those those arms that are supposedly not protected by the 2A? That said arms were in the hands of a member of the People who loaned them to government agents, armed to protect us, to stop this crime?

...in the words or the Grinch "How could it be so?"

[gejohnston]

27. according to every account I read

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

that pretty well sums it up. Of course, that was quite awhile ago. Question I had was why didn't the cops send a couple of guys with scoped bolt actions on a roof top.

[mikeysnot]

31. YOU RIGHT!

They must of forged and manufactured them all by themselves! How can I be so obtuse.

[gejohnston]

32. full auto AKs are not that hard to find on the black market

see Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil.

[trouble.smith]

30. Here we're discussing our forefather's beliefs and intentions

when they were all sitting down together attempting to pen our constitution and bill of rights. It is wholly appropriate to use their quotes from this same period of time to better understand what they were thinking-what their intentions were. There's nothing lame about this no matter how much you claim it to be so. What is lame, however, is to try to ignore their words in order to find the intent you want instead of the intent they actually had which is what you are doing. It's beyond lame, it's irresponsible and juvenile. It's sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you". Furthermore, it's a shameful assault against this country's forefathers.

Tench Coxe was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress. He participated in writing our constitution and our bill of rights. He penned the aforementioned quote in a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette on Feb. 20, 1788-four months after he helped pen the final draft of the US constitution, the constitution that serves as the bed rock of this republic-the bedrock you attempt to erode by substituting his beliefs and intentions with yours.

He penned the following quote in 1789:
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.


The beliefs and intentions of Tench Coxe are undeniable. His intent is well known. You can not escape it.

[PavePusher]

20. So the Internet is not covered by the First Amendment?

Or any religion developed after the Constitution was adopted?

How far down that primrose path do you want to go?

[Eleanors38]

24. Poof! There goes that "press" you sent your response on.

[DonP]

12. I take all my constitutional advice from reporters on low rated networks

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Piers Morgan is one of those kids that obviously skipped the tough classes to coordinate his frat's parties.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. I don't take anything from a so called reporter or journalist...

[PavePusher]

19. Especially not a British one who has no understanding of the Constitution he derides.

What a phukwat.

[PavePusher]

18. p0wned n/t

[Jenoch]

28. I'm still trying to understand why

American cares what a British citizen thinks about our constitution?

[MicaelS]

29. Because "some" Americans want us to become more "civilized"...

And implement draconian Gun Prohibition just the UK has done. That's it in a nutshell.

[spin]

35. I wish to be a citizen, not a subject. ...

A citizen has rights whereas a subject has privileges.

[dizbukhapeter]

34. Our founding fathers had an inkling of what firearms technology would eventually come

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.

Only one example of his guns still exist and from accounts, it worked somewhat.

[jimmy the one]

36. Bogus interpretations out of context

dscontntirony etc: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Excerpts from two separate speeches, the first in 1836, the last sentence 1805. Somewhat obvious he's speaking of militia in the first 2 sentences, then you try to conflate it with individual rkba.

The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention.. Virginia 1805.) --- right, so sequitur for militia duty.

patrick: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, Phil, 1836)

in context: Suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds. ... Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel

patrick speaking of militia, obviously: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 1836)

------------------------------
troublesmith: Tench Coxe was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress. He participated in writing our constitution and our bill of rights. He penned the aforementioned quote in a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette on Feb. 20, 1788-four months after he helped pen the final draft of the US constitution, the constitution that serves as the bed rock of this republic-the bedrock you attempt to erode by substituting his beliefs and intentions with yours.

Tench Coxe had also been a tory early in the revwar, profitting by british trade, then later switched sides & was a rebel militia private; He was known by a nickname, can't recall it exact, but something like 'two faced' since he sometimes supported the british, sometimes the american (ostensibly which side he was in company with).

tench coxe, cited by troublesmith: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms

You cannot see how this applies to the militia rather than individuals? coxe was speaking of militia to counter any tyrannical military. The 'people' (white males) also had been given, by law, the right to own private firearms by the militia act of 1792, for militia service.

The beliefs and intentions of Tench Coxe are undeniable. His intent is well known. You can not escape it

Yet you ignore his words in order to find an intent you want instead of the intent coxe actually had.

troublesmith: What is lame, however, is to try to ignore their words in order to find the intent you want instead of the intent they actually had which is what you are doing. It's beyond lame, it's irresponsible and juvenile. It's sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you". Furthermore, it's a shameful assault against this country's forefathers.

Do tell.