Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter jasmith85
- Start date
- Status
'...The transparency, however, is obvious to all.johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Until at least the war of 1812 more artillery pieces were in private hands than in the hands of the government. I believe that information came from "The Founders Second Amendment" where it is detailed.
It blows my mind that anyone could say this now as the US government is re-instating the Taliban in Afghanistan b/c the Taliban, with almost no training, funding, less arms than US civilians, more aof an electronics disadvantage, no manufacturing, etc, etc, were able to out last all the gunships, cruise missiles, tanks, and mountains of electronics. For the SECOND TIME.
You can't win without heavy cavalry
You can't win without a navy
You can't win without gunships
When you lean on technology balance is fragile.
I have trouble believing there were more cannon in private hands before the war of 1812 than in army hands. I also have trouble believing the Taliban has no funding and fewer weapons than civilians. But how the Taliban, just like the VC, can win is simple: they don't have to go anywhere. All they have to do is wait out the enemy, which currently is us.
I still think whatever kinds of weapons the original writers of the constituion had in mind is irrelevant. However, one think I doubt they thought about was someone shooting up a schoolhouse, not that there were many schools at the time.
I still think whatever kinds of weapons the original writers of the constituion had in mind is irrelevant. However, one think I doubt they thought about was someone shooting up a schoolhouse, not that there were many schools at the time.
Aberration
New member
I believe they intended ANY arm that would be needed by a militia.
BlueTrain, please bear in mind that up through the War of 1812, Congress could barely agree to maintain a Navy of six frigates, and most of the time two or three of those were in mothballs.
Merchant ships carried cannon.
Most naval actions were fought for us by privateers, who also carried cannon.
You really are not much into military history, are you?
Merchant ships carried cannon.
Most naval actions were fought for us by privateers, who also carried cannon.
You really are not much into military history, are you?
I never see anyone mention this...
The Girandoni air rifle was created in 1779 and was used in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815, it had a 22 round "high capacity" magazine and fired a .46 caliber ball at near 45acp speeds . The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on their expedition. Seeing as how the Bill of rights was ratified in 1791, 11-12 years AFTER the Girandoni rifle was invented, I would say the founding fathers had a strong grasp on where firearm technology was, and where it was going.
There is one on display at the NRA museum in Fairfax,VA for those interested.
The Girandoni air rifle was created in 1779 and was used in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815, it had a 22 round "high capacity" magazine and fired a .46 caliber ball at near 45acp speeds . The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on their expedition. Seeing as how the Bill of rights was ratified in 1791, 11-12 years AFTER the Girandoni rifle was invented, I would say the founding fathers had a strong grasp on where firearm technology was, and where it was going.
There is one on display at the NRA museum in Fairfax,VA for those interested.
Last edited:
Aberration
New member
Well done!
Strafer Gott
New member
In colonial times the main difference in arms was what we now know as a cosmetic feature, the bayonet. After two or three rounds were fired, everything closed to bayonet range. At this point the difference of a Brown Bess to a long rifle became shockingly obvious, leaving the Colonials not much choice but to show their heels. The Hessians in their mirth totally mis-read the outcome.
The need for equivalent arms is no joke, and neither is the 2nd Amendment.
The need for equivalent arms is no joke, and neither is the 2nd Amendment.
Colduglandon
New member
They had power hungry politicians in mind and that has not changed since the beginning of time. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was back then.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
A noted above, the US government had no standing army to speak of and the navy was basically privatized. The field artillery was almost all captured British. When captured in the Revolution it more or less became the property of the unit commander. After the war, like most US wars until Vietnam, soldiers just walked away with pretty much all the equipment they could carry. It is said that on the fourth of July you could hear cannons being shot anywhere in the entire country for decades after the revolution b/c all of the private cannons being fired in celebration.
Post war of 1812 is where you start to see a standing army in the US. My guess is artillery was predominantly in private hands long after the war of 1812. An old Napoleonic cannon is much more devastating than a semi-automatic rifle, especially in a "mass shooting." My guess is that around 1840 the field artillery in private hands is starting to become obsolete and the US gov't invests in some newer pieces. I am sure by the Civil War the shift had occurred. If state and local militias are put in the "private" column, maybe not though. It isn't like they were registered or needed an NICS check
I meant US civilians. Maybe you did not understand that. If you did and you don't agree, well, we do. We have a lot more guns also. We have a lot more everything.
Drones and guided missiles are great, when you aren't attacking targets mixed with your tax base who speak the same language and look just or may even be related to your soldiers. There are so many advantages US civilians have over the other insurgencies the US military has lost.
Where would US civilians need to go? Nowhere. They don't need to occupy or control anything either. Just exist.
Would the US gov't be able to borrow ANY money with a revolution taking place? How long do you think it would take them to miss payroll? The only advantage they really have over US civilians is how much softer US civilians are than Taliban fighter or VC. "I ordered a Venti with soy, not skim."
Is this going to happen? I think not. Obama is going to try to pass some wimpy EOs that it appears may be tamed by threats of retaliation on other issues. Maybe the EOs will finally be reigned in which would be very good for 'Merica. If it does happen I am volunteering to be the diplomat to Switzerland for whichever side I am standing next to when it starts. I tried to calculate inches of concrete wall between myself and a cyclic M2 firing in my direction and extrapolate how safe I was once, all while the hospital behind me got pounded, and that was enough.
Maybe not, but launching a 6 pounder into a Tavern or shelling a city had to enter their mind. You know, because they witnessed it.
Last edited:
To the grocery store...... as would the vast majority of the rest of the population.
They could not, in good faith, borrow money now..... it is just that nobody can afford to let the system collapse, for uncle sam owes them too much.
The government can not afford to continue paying 30+% of the population to do nothing, and it can not afford to stop paying those same 30+% to do nothing. Catch-22, is it not?
The thing I fear the most is the dependant dumb masses crying out for a dictator, if he will only continue to feed them.
The reckoning is comming ..... the only question is how abrupt the changes will be......
Hell or High Water, I will be armed. I'll not go out like the Armenians, the Jews of Europe, the disidents of Soviet Russia, the intelligensia of Cambodia, .........
Last edited:
I was wondering for a bit if there was going to be some pushback from states with Rkba in their state constitutions. At least one Texas state representative is. I hear something similar is going on in Wyoming.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/m...id=4157&session=83&district=15&bill_code=2825
http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/m...id=4157&session=83&district=15&bill_code=2825
At the risk of sounding stupid or reposting someone else's thoughts, I was always taught that the gist of the 2nd Amendment was "to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in order to protect themselves from threats from foreign enemies and more importantly, against a tyrannical government."
I was never taught to view arms as only "guns" but as "anything" that one could use to defend themselves with.
Meaning, the people should have equal access to "whatever" the military has so that we are able to posses the ability to keep the government in check and prevent it from abusing its power.
Since "arms" can mean anything, this means its not just limited to guns, but can mean access to the same level of training, right to own the same type of vehicles, etc.
So, if the military is armed with the best butter knives ever designed, we the people, should have equal access to said butter knives.
Now, with that being said, I wonder how the evolution of weapons would have differed if everyone had access to the same weapons instead of a select few deciding who has what and how many. Just a thought.
I was never taught to view arms as only "guns" but as "anything" that one could use to defend themselves with.
Meaning, the people should have equal access to "whatever" the military has so that we are able to posses the ability to keep the government in check and prevent it from abusing its power.
Since "arms" can mean anything, this means its not just limited to guns, but can mean access to the same level of training, right to own the same type of vehicles, etc.
So, if the military is armed with the best butter knives ever designed, we the people, should have equal access to said butter knives.
Now, with that being said, I wonder how the evolution of weapons would have differed if everyone had access to the same weapons instead of a select few deciding who has what and how many. Just a thought.
I've changed my view since this current debate started. I was opposed to the tyrannical government argument. Now that I have read more and researched, I am almost convinced that the "assault" rifles are being targeted for being a threat to government rather than, being a threat to the public. The AR is so prolific and commonplace but seldom used in crimes.
I haven't changed mine at all. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to enable to overthrow the government but to prevent that from happening. Pretty big difference.
One of the basic problems here is that the simple fact that some crazy people who are not bank robbers or thieves in the night are killing people by the dozen and that fact is being ignored. The fact that there have been killings in schools bothers some people. Yes, we could have policemen in those schools (who would probably be the first to be shot and some schools have them anyway), if you don't mind a police state.
All this discussion over what an assault rifle is sounds foolish to someone who knows perfectly well how quickly they can be fired. If you don't know, find someone who has one and just see how fast you can empty the magazine. That discussion is up there with the magazine/clip discussions. And another thing, your arguments would go down a little smoother with the non-believers if you toned down your mention of tyrannical governments and rebellion.
One of the basic problems here is that the simple fact that some crazy people who are not bank robbers or thieves in the night are killing people by the dozen and that fact is being ignored. The fact that there have been killings in schools bothers some people. Yes, we could have policemen in those schools (who would probably be the first to be shot and some schools have them anyway), if you don't mind a police state.
All this discussion over what an assault rifle is sounds foolish to someone who knows perfectly well how quickly they can be fired. If you don't know, find someone who has one and just see how fast you can empty the magazine. That discussion is up there with the magazine/clip discussions. And another thing, your arguments would go down a little smoother with the non-believers if you toned down your mention of tyrannical governments and rebellion.
BlueTrain, you keep saying that, but it is demonstrably false. You blithely ignore direct statements from the framers about vigilance in preventing tyranny. You still haven't come up with any federally seized powers (as in not enumerated, but assumed under questionable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause) that you do not like.
You love big government. Just admit it.
In other words, you support exactly the trend against which Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al warned us against.
You love big government. Just admit it.
In other words, you support exactly the trend against which Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al warned us against.
As I was out getting my morning exercise I noticed that my neighbor has put up the 2A on ~5'x5' posters at both ends of their property. I stopped and read it, though I know it by heart, "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." I've been thinking and reading about it since. Maybe that is a danger when increasing oxygen flow to ones brain?
Now we can discuss and debate what the FF had in mind by Militia or even State in this context, but they are both contingent on right the of the people to keep and bear arms. A militia is universally defined as a body of citizen solders, in contrast to a professional military force under the supply and command of a central government, and they knew to be free the people needed to have the RKBA. That is what they had in mind, and everything else is secondary to that in my opinion.
Now we can discuss and debate what the FF had in mind by Militia or even State in this context, but they are both contingent on right the of the people to keep and bear arms. A militia is universally defined as a body of citizen solders, in contrast to a professional military force under the supply and command of a central government, and they knew to be free the people needed to have the RKBA. That is what they had in mind, and everything else is secondary to that in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Status