Comment by collingreen
21 days ago
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard.
The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive.
If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?
Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.
When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy.
They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons.
They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization.
They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed.
I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.
claims like these require a source
Source for what?
That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes?
Or sources that Privateers were a thing?
Tanks for all! /s
The founding fathers denied the right to bare arms to Catholics (and I’d wager lots of other religions), Native Americans, slaves (unless their owners explicitly allowed them), and we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
> Tanks for all!
"Tanks" as a vehicle aren't regulated whatsoever - their main cannon is a destructive device which carries its own set of regulations, but you can absolutely own a tank (sans main gun) with zero paperwork.
Privateers sunk over 600 British vessels during the Revolution - do you think they needed permits for their cannonry? Or that the Founders somehow didn't know this was happening?
> Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
Tell me what United States v Miller was about then?
Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly?
> we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Federalist #46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
This "collective right" idea is completely bogus and flies in the face of countless historical writings, accounts, etc. The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?
1 reply →
When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation.
On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures.
On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy.
If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.
Meanwhile privateers sunk or captured 2200+ British ships during the Revolution - I'm sure this was all "organized" militia and every one of those cannons had a permit and taxes paid.
Who are you trying to fool?
1 reply →
We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
7 replies →
>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation.
The State Guards are the militias
For example the Texas Guard:
https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard
Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
Incorrect, that would be the:
https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
Pretty sure we used the same link and you’re explaining it as though I’m wrong
Smdh
3 replies →
> where are the well regulated militias?
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
It was mostly a joke, since these sorts of groups have always, like going back 40+yr, been magnets for law enforcement who always seem to push them to do illegal things.
Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.