Answer to the framers could not have imagined machine guns...

J

Jace

New member
An answer to the anti's claim the framers could not have imagined the invention of machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction, Therefore the 2nd doesn't apply to these type of weapons.

Fact is Leonardo DaVinci (1452 - 1519) drew picture of a rapid-fire cannon and an automatic fire crossbow some 300 years before the war for independence. DaVinci's work documents the desire for rapid-fire high capacity weapons.

I point out the principles of operation used in a machine gun were well understood. Metallurgy and manufacturing techniques were not mature enough at the time to produce the precision parts required in a machine gun. They knew how they worked they just did not know how to make them.

I've used this a bunch of times it shuts them down pretty good!
 
I always reply with the fact that the Founders could never have imagined:

1. The Internet.

2. High-speed offset presses that can print 1 million copies of a newspaper a day.

3. Radio.

4. Television.

I always ask them if they're willing to give those up and go back to a town crier and a single-sheet broadside for their news and entertainment...

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Mike that is my answer to them too.If machine guns void the 2nd then radio and televison therefore should void the first.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
My reply to those anit's is the same as others - radio, TV, etc.., but I include the telephone as it relates to the 4th.

The Framer's had their view's based upon FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLES not whims of the times

madison46
 
British Patent #418
issued 1718
Puckle's rapid firing gun.
A hand-cranked machine gun, similar to the Gatling, but with a revolving cylinder and single barrel.

--1718!!--
Thomas Jefferson knew of this invention when he wrote the 2nd.



------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
Seems as if one of man's greatest pleasures is RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL. He seems bound and determined to do this, with some regularity.
 
My reply is that if the founders had seen the progression of firearms from a hand-held firearm ignited with a punk, to a smoothbore matchlock long gun, to a wheellock, to a flintlock; what in Hell makes anyone think that they did not think that the effectiveness and mechanics of firearms would not continue to be developed?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
There was also an experimental arm using multiple balls with fuse running through them, and powder charges between--an actual "automatic weapon."

It wasn't very effective, as the compression made the later charges more powerful, and it couldn't be stopped, but it WAS an automatic weapon.

I _LOVE_ using the satellite broadcast argument--the framers couldn't foresee live broadcasts from the battlefield, so how about a reasonable 3 day wait on publication, just to protect national defense. After all, if it saves one life, isn't it worth it?
http://www.keepandbeararms.com
look up my name (Michael Z. Williamson)
and read my article on "It's Amazing What One Has to Believe to Believe in Gun Control."

Feel free to use my soundbites.

------------------
“It is criminal not to teach a man to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.”--Malcolm X
 
Franklin and Jefferson are quite possibly two of the greatest inventive minds of all time. It's impossible to imagine that they couldn't see the mechanics of invention and a progression beyond what they had at hand in the late 1700's. The 2nd is pretty specific when it says "Arms". Arms,not guns, but arms. In Washington's first inagural address, he stressed the vital importance of the manufacture and development of arms in the United States. Most of this is lost on the anti mindset though. You can stymie them with facts like this, only to turn a corner and hear them saying the same old same old to someone else. I've sadi it before, I'll keep saying it. Our side NEEDS an ad firm to come up with catchy long lasting slogans.

'bout the only thing I can't see the Founding Fathers foreseeing is "Time off for good behavior." Or the ownership of S&* by a foreign firm.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited October 09, 2000).]
 
I believe if you check you will find that people owned cannon's of various sizes.......especially along the coasts and rivers. Private merchant ships were often armed although not as heavily as a military vessel---fubsy....
 
Texasvet:

"Thomas Jefferson knew of this invention when he wrote the 2nd." Minor correction here. Madison wrote the 2nd not Jefferson.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Just to be devil's advocate for a second.

Would the Fathers support the open broadcast of child pornograhpy on regular TV channels.

Congress has no power to stop it from the First?

Interesting that with the return of piracy to many waters, one could easily see private merchant vessels mounting the full auto >20mm
guns that navy ships use against smaller opponents.

I'm OK with folks having fully auto AR-15s, etc. given a NICS check (sorry - dudes). No BATF and $200 crap though.

I would allow private HE weapons like above with some reasonable purpose and licensing system.
 
What would the founding fathers have said today when they saw the government having
a virtual monopoly on high tech weapons like
automatic rifles and high capacity semi-auto shotguns.
And different weapons continuing to be listed as 'too' dangerous for civillian ownership.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Just to chime in, I think 2nd amendment arguments only hold water with a certain slice of the anti- population. A large percentage of them could care less what the 2nd means. I find that there are confused anti's and psuedo-pacifist anti's. It's the pseudo-pacifist's I worry about.

The BoR means not a whit to them, it's that simple. I find it effective to tailor debate to the opponent. Pseudo-pacifists get the morality of self-defense discussion and more theoretical, moral arguments; while confused anti's get the BoR, history and facts.

- gabe
 
GRD,
That is why they want to treat the Constitution as a 'living' document.

madison

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GRD:
Just to chime in, I think 2nd amendment arguments only hold water with a certain slice of the anti- population. A large percentage of them could care less what the 2nd means. I find that there are confused anti's and psuedo-pacifist anti's. It's the pseudo-pacifist's I worry about.

The BoR means not a whit to them, it's that simple. I find it effective to tailor debate to the opponent. Pseudo-pacifists get the morality of self-defense discussion and more theoretical, moral arguments; while confused anti's get the BoR, history and facts.

- gabe[/quote]
 
The Father's couldn't have imagined the Atomic Bomb either.
But who is the only Nation on Earth who has dared ever use this??
The same Nation that set the stage with having, arguably the most accurate, therefore, deadly missiles and warheads in the world.
Tha same Nation that spearheaded agreements with other Nations to limit those weapons, in a venture called MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. An effort I supose, to limti the numbers of warheads that might be pointed at it, someday.

Now, we hear of things like world-wide disarmament of civilians forces, for the greater collective good, or some such.
That we, as a peaceful people don't need to defend outselves against a tyrannical government. That that was an old problem never seen since.
That the 2nd, nay, the whole BOR, was written after a Revolution, when nobody trusted government.

That ours is the most trusting, understanding, peaceful Nation on the planet.
If ours is the most trusting, then why have nukes at all? No threat out there anymore is there?

If ours in the most understanding, why have we incidents like Waco, Ruby Ridge, Minutemen, etc...

If our is the most peaceful, why did Kent State happen?
Why did the attacks upon the Civil Rights Marchers happen?
Again why Waco, and Ruby Ridge?
Why the assault on the peaceful protestors to the NWO crowd gathering in Seattle?

I know that most who advocate the removal of any of the BOR, need to read history, and understand that human nature will never change.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Would the Fathers support the open broadcast of child pornograhpy on regular TV channels.[/quote]

I think the founders would have wondered what kind of parent would allow their child to participate in the creation of child pornography, and what kind of foul being would want to watch it, and that the moral fabric of society must first become horribly tattered for anyone to want to create or view it.

They might also wonder if people would be forced to view such things, or if they could simply ignore it. If no one is forced to view it, and all people involved are somehow (however unbelievably) willing participants, then what is the problem? There are some who view pugilistic events not as sport, but as brutal and cruel. They may sit peacefully in their homes and attend to their own matters.
 
While rapid fire firearms were indeed conceptualized during the Continental Congress, there was something more urgent at play. The British military was armed with a Brown Bess (muzzle-loader with an effective aimed range of est. 100 feet). Continentals were armed with state of the art long rifles with an aimed, effective range of 300+ yards.

Seems to me the Second Amendment was written during a time when civilians, not militia or standing armies, were armed with the most accurate weapon known. It was the accuracy of the long rifle that allowed the American militia and citizens to employ Indian tactics and fire on the British from concealed positions.

Opponents of the second amendment need to go elsewhere from an argument about the dangers of modern firearms.


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Donny:
The Father's couldn't have imagined the Atomic Bomb either.
[/quote]


I bet they could have!


------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
EnochGale:
>>Would the Fathers support the open
>>broadcast of child pornograhpy on regular
>>TV channels.

and

Donny:
>>The Father's couldn't have imagined the
>>Atomic Bomb either.

These two statements remind me of the ACLU's cop-out excuse as to why it does not fight to preserve the 2nd:

>>Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
>>certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas,
>>missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and
>>even submachine guns, are arms.
>>The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but
>>how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the
>>Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

To that, I respond, "Most opponents of speech control, even the ACLU, concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to libel, slander and film grown men buggering 4-year-olds. Yet these, like newspapers, Disney films and even Hustler, are forms of expression. The question therefore is not whether to restrict expression, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

Bah! It's the ACLU's prerogative to ignore the 2nd, but at least they should be brave enough to come out and simply say "we don't feel like it." Instead the make up sophistry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top