every wacko has the right to own an assault rifle,
and how exactly do you propose to completely correct that without voiding the Second Amendment?
This argument is total nonsense. How can conservatives insist that the Constitution is an inviolate, unquestionable document that should be understood
exactly as it was written and according to the intentions of the Founding Fathers
but then turn around and claim that the 2nd Amendment protects assault rifles, a technology that was not imaginable during the 1700s? The 2nd Amendment says:
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.
So why don't the Constitutional "Originalists," the people who insist that the Constitution should never be "interpreted" in any other context, also insist that gun ownership should be contingent upon membership in a "well-regulated Militia"? Or that the only guns protected by the 2nd Amendment are those types that existed in 1791 (the year the Bill of Rights was ratified), such as muskets? Here is an interesting list of what gun technology did and did not include in 1791:
Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.htm l
reply
share
starwolf
12 years ago
Let me start with saying I think you actually have an excellent point - perhaps people wishing to own "better than hunting" weapons should be required to receive milita training and/or join a milita.
As for the Second Amendment, let's look at context, shall we?
What was on the Founding Fathers' minds when they wrote this? They had just fought a war against their "established government." One of the major factors in this battle was an armed militia. Who made up the militia? The civilian populace, many of whom had NO training (or discipline). (Of course, one result of the lack of training and discipline made them cannon fodder.)
Clearly the Founding Fathers believed that government taking weapons away from the populace is the first step in eliminating the soldier-citizen, or militia member, and they created a ban against it. The Founding Fathers left in a very clear provision for the populace to be able to rise up against a future tyrannical government, if need be.
The problems now, in my opinion, are two fold.
1) Is it reasonable to think the populace can, at this point in history, ever rise up against an increasingly tyrannical government? I have my doubts. (we can argue "increasingly tyrannical" but the reason I wrote that is there are more assaults on freedoms and civil rights coming from this adminstration than any previous one - the latest being the Justice Department is arguing they should no longer be required to get a search warrant to require providers to give them all location data for your cell phone. The purpose of a search warrant is intended to be a check and balance feature. Why do away with it?)
2) The second problem is exactly what you said in the last part of your message. The weapons they were used to were on a par with the military weapons. A squirrel gun was closely akin to a military musket.
Now, military weapons far outstrip civilian weapons. An M231 with a cyclic rate of over 1200 rounds per minute pretty much outclasses the Remington pump action.
So, do we give up on the Founding Fathers' intent?
I don't know the answer, but I don't think it can easily be reduced to either position of
1) Ban all weapons except a small few which could be used for hunting, or
2) Allow the populace to keep fully automatic weapons on a par with what the military uses.
Sorry for the edit (and increasing the length) but I also wanted to respond to something else you said - should we consider the Constitution inviolate. The answer to that one is, hell yes! If a part of it needs to be changed, there exists a mechanism for doing so - the amendment system. The Consitution does not need and should never be changed through any other mechanism, whether that be court interpretation or executive order.
If you decide to invalidate one part of it, no matter how small, in any other manner then what prevents the entire thing from becoming an ineffective piece of parchment?
After all, don't most oaths of office and service include some variant of "preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States?" Not "preserving and protecting the parts we currently happen to like." If a part needs to be changed, amend it in the proper way.
reply
share
Spongeyone
12 years ago
So why don't the Constitutional "Originalists," the people who insist that the Constitution should never be "interpreted" in any other context, also insist that gun ownership should be contingent upon membership in a "well-regulated Militia"?
Mostly because the Constitution says what it says, and not "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed as much as Congress wants if the people aren't in the militia"
There's nothing connecting the bit about the militia being important to any grant of power for the government. Which shouldn't be a surprise, as we're talking about the second part of the Bill of Rights and not articles 1 or 2 of the Constitution.
Also, assault rifles have been banned for decades.
Death to shakeycam directors!
reply
share
chimera-21
11 years ago
Go back to sleep. Drink the Koolaid. Whatever it is you people do.
First, you have no understanding of your subject. What do you imagine an "assault rifle" is?
Do you know what the "militia" is?
Do you have a clue what "regulated" meant, or means?
If the Constitution(and specifically the Bill of Rights) must detail technological advances then turn off your computer, et al, right now. You are henceforth allowed only a manual printing press and a quill pen.
Automatic(Gatling type) firearms were made 60 years prior to the Revolution(see "Puckle Gun" among others). Multi-shot handguns were offered to the Continental Congress(and they requested further development).
Your fear-mongering and ignorance are noted...and dismissed.
http://www.libertydwells.com
reply
share
tbonesays
11 years ago
a technology that was not imaginable during the 1700s?
The Founding Fathers could imagine quite a bit. No matter though because the right to bear arms is not restricted to 18th century weapons any more than the freedom of the press protects only a people who own a printing press.
reply
share