[dustind]

A light bulb just went off in my head. We always hear "When the 2nd amendment was drafted our FFs could never imagine technological advances blah blah blah" which is a lie, our FF wanted a balance of power, machine guns fit. The fact that they outperform muskets is irrelivant.

Anyway, we always compare the 2nd to the 1st, quill pens to the internet, etc. Why dont we ever mention that people could own cannons back then along with the 1st amend. comparison? I think it would really kill the antis argument. You can not say our founding fathers could not imagine the firepower of modern firearms when in fact people owned cannons.

[Triad]

The main problem with that is that most anti's do not use a factual or logical base for their arguement. Comparing the 2nd to he 1st is only a viable option if the person is willing to reason.

The fact that people owned cannons and even warships has been ignored by other people as well, including some on this forum who are otherwise pro gun.

[Justin]

A more generally logical argument to use with fence sitters is to ask them whether the first amendment covers developments such as photocopiers, movies, and the internet.

Then point out that their argument is inconsistent.

Also, there were many developments in rapid-fire weapons around that time, reference the Puckle Gun, pepperboxes, and various air-rifles which were generally more powerful than their contemporary black powder equivalents.

[hillbilly]

Just a point here....you can STILL own cannons..... at least of the blackpowder variety.

[seeker_two]

Col. Jeff Cooper, among others, has pointed out that, were the Second Amendment was universally recognized, that every household would own a full-auto M-16 rifle (today's military "musket") and would be trained in their use. :cool:

If anti-freedom activists were consistent, they would promote that the First Amendment only pertains to hand-cranked ink presses & would ban high-capacity publications... :rolleyes:

[geekWithA.45]

The simple, sad truth is thus:

1) The intention of the 2nd amendment was that the People should retain military superiority to the standing army.
2) The only confusion about this issue has literally been created by people who want it to be otherwise.
3) Said people have been successful in implementing legislation counter to the intention of the 2nd amendment, and have been successful in sowing controversy about it.
4) Even theoretical parity/superiority to the US standing armed forces is no longer feasible, the number of bake sales needed to buy even a single howitzer is daunting, and we can plain forget anything like an aircraft carrier.


At the cusp of the 21st century, we've blundered a fair way down a dark road, but it's not too late to turn back.

[Marko Kloos]

The argument would be valid if the federal government was limited to using muskets. Since the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, but about the ability of the citizens to maintain force parity with their government, it covers every single last piece of hardware used by either the Armed Forces or any of the federal alphabet agencies.

[cuchulainn]

Yes, agreed: attack the premise.

Who says the founders could not envision advances in weaponry? They were well educated men, many of them military men, many of them scientists and inventors.

That's like saying people in 1900 could never imagine traveling to the moon.

[4v50 Gary]

The antis are so rabid, they even put a trigger lock on Captain Parker's musket.

[KC]

"The fact that people owned cannons and even warships has been ignored by other people as well"

Henry Knox, our first Chief of Artillery (or whatever his title) was a self-trained officer who was a bokseller by trade.

Sam Adams supported private ownership of firearms, if for no other reason than so his smugglers could shoot their way out of a tax-collectors ambush

Most of the US Navy in the Revolutionary war was privatly owned. (BTW, anyone know offhand the last time Congress issued a Letter of Marque?)

[gun-fucious]

The Puckle gun was invented pre second amendment in 1718

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm

[DnPRK]

The founding fathers were well aware that many American citizens were better armed (with rifles) than the Army (with smoothbores) when they adopted the second amendment.

If you study the small arms of the Revolutionary War you will find that some American "rebels" were better armed than their Recoat counterparts. While most were equipped with smoothbore muskets that could double as shotguns for putting food on the table, many were equipped with rifles.

The rifles were awesome 300-yard killing machines that easily out-ranged the Redcoat's Brown Bess smoothbores. In the opening shots of an engagement, American riflemen would kill the Redcoat Lieutenants and Sergeants, leaving the privates without leadership. The battle of Saratoga and later King's Mountain were won due to American riflemen. Riflemen were prised and often had musket-equipped infantry assigned to them to act as security units. The Redcoats so feared/hated the riflemen that it got to a point where they would execute captured riflemen. After suffering staggering losses of their leadership, the Redcoats formed their own units of riflemen.

Too bad most Americans choose to ignore their history.

[Hkmp5sd]

When confronted with this type argument, the antis will inform you that the 1st Amendment doesn't cover child porn or yelling fire in theater. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with limiting or banning certain firearms from protection under the 2nd Amendment.

Then there are those that think the 2nd Amendment is talking about the National Guard, not individuals (while not asking why the government included a right for the government to own firearms in the section of the constitution covering personal rights and freedoms). They do not care that the US Supreme Court has always held the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

Then there are those that say, "if it just saves one child...." or "we just want reasonable gun control."

And the final group of antis is composed of morons like Bill Clinton that says the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to be removed from the constitution. Clinton even made the comment, When we got organized as a country, we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans. There’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. (March 22, 1994)

[BowStreetRunner]

there is a plan, chuck the constitution
yeah it was radical, for a reason!
good points Mp5
so many arguements about the 2A will never even be had much less won because when you have an agenda, truth doesnt matter
BSR

[goon]

They had "roman candle" guns during that period that shot several rounds with one pull of the trigger. I remember reading about them in an American Rifleman mag a long time ago. There was also a gun called a Nock's Volley Gun. It had several barrels arranged in sort of a pepperbox arrangement. One pull of the trigger sent seven (IIRC) rounds 'asailin' at the enemy.
Also, following that logic is still not a good plan.
At the time, you could own a musket or a cannon.
The average man often owned weapons as good as what the militaries were issuing.
With the invention of the PA rifle, the average guy had access to a weapon that was in some ways better than what the military was using.
True, they were slower to load, but they made up for that with range that is many times over the range of a smoothbore musket.
Bottom line is that in 1776, there was nothing keeping the average person from owning weapons as advanced as those used by the military.

[AZRickD]

HK wrote:
the antis will inform you that the 1st Amendment doesn't cover child porn or yelling fire in theater.

That's a separate argument to the one being dealt with in this thread.

Does the first amendment cover fax machines or modems?

Rick
Forget I asked that question.

[Kharn]

If the First Amendment doesnt cover child porn or yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, then the Second Amendment doesnt cover attacking a child or discharging a firearm inside a theater without justification.

Kharn

[Hkmp5sd]

Kharn,

Sounds good to me. You wanna run for President? :)

[telomerase]

>1) The intention of the 2nd amendment was that the People should retain military superiority to the standing army.

Yep.

>2) The only confusion about this issue has literally been created by people who want it to be otherwise.

Yep.

>3) Said people have been successful in implementing legislation counter to the intention of the 2nd amendment, and have been successful in sowing controversy about it.

Yep.

>4) Even theoretical parity/superiority to the US standing armed forces is no longer feasible, the number of bake sales needed to buy even a single howitzer is daunting, and we can plain forget anything like an aircraft carrier.

Huh? Bill Gates could buy more firepower than the whole SAC (because he wouldn't put it on 1950s planes and 1960s missiles), and that's just one guy. Even with the GOVERNMENT buying them, cruise missiles only cost what, a million or so? A good anti-tank missile is in the range that people pay for legal full-auto weapons in this country.

Money isn't the problem, just beliefs.

[jimpeel]

Per my Firing Line posts at Government Control of Deadly Portable Weapons; How much is enough??? (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=97509)

You forget that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were authored by gentlemen who customarily kept a brace of working field pieces as lawn decorations.

and ...

Need help with an ACLU co-worker (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=84072) Simply tell him you believe that the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- and who kept a brace of working field pieces as lawn decorations -- would approve of your, or his, ownership of such an instrument.

and ...

I Really Need Help Against Anti's (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25655)Okay. First. You will have to slap this clown with the fact that there are tactical weapons and ballistic weapons. A tactical weapon is a standard weapon of issue such as a firearm or even a bazooka. A ballistic weapon is a weapon of mass destruction such as a thermonuclear device or a biological component.

Second, We, here in the U.S., are already able to own a bazooka, Laws rocket, Abrams tank, etc. These are classified as destructive devices and there are special transfer fees and permits that are issued to citizens seeking to own these. Hollywood armorers come immediately to mind.

I think it was Dateline NBC that did a piece a while back that there are as many as seven fully operable Apache helicopters in private hands, most owned by the same company. When you see an Apahce in a movie, the chances are it was rented from this company and not from the military.

Third. Ask them this: Do you really feel that the same people who wrote the Supreme Law of the Land -- and kept a brace of working field pieces as lawn decorations -- meant to exempt cannon and other devices from their reading of the Second Amendment?

For a really fun time send them here http://www.bigjimsmgs.com . That is Big Jim's machine gun sanctuary.

Don't forget to click that link. Its a really fun time. Lots of videos of stuff getting torn up. My favorite is called "Tracer" http://www.bigjimsmgs.com/VIDEOS99/tracer.avi .