2A Question...

[shankmcgank]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and very pro gun.

I see the 2nd amendment used all the time by pro gun Americans as a reason why people should be able to keep them, specifically weapons that the media would label an "assault rifle" such as an M4 / AK47 and their variants.

2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

With this in mind, I refer to the Democrat argument (not mine) that the right to bear arms meant muskets, or rifles of the day which were single shot, not semi automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, Uzi's, M4s, AKs and in some cases, automatics that can legally be owned, such as in Florida with a class 2 license.

While owning slaves was at one time allowed and widely accepted, society changed and slavery was outlawed. While I understand that owning slaves wasn't an amendment to the constitution, treaties and deals are changed, withdrawn from or just plain ignored quite frequently.

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ? Yes, I'm aware that pistols are frequently used in mass shootings as well, many of these being semi auto, and having stock 15+ round magazines available to empty before needing to reload.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

For the record I don't like the gun grab that just happened in New Zealand, and I don't like the way Canadian gun laws are going either.

I just don't understand how a lot of people's blanket answer is "the second amendment says..." from 200+ years ago.

Help me out here ?



TL/DR: I don't understand how 2A is an extremely common blanket answer to people's ideas at attempting to reduce gun violence / mass shootings.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Idk what part of “shall not be infringed” you’re having trouble with...

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Communist canadian trying to take my guns away thread confirmed

 

[7437]

Constitution is the highest legal document, and requires very specific circumstances to alter. So any law alter gun ownership has to mass muster at that level

Also, it's not the Democrat position that 2a only applies to muskets.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/preventing-gun-violence/

 

[all caps]

The second amendment is just a reminder of a right you were born with. Not sure why you think that's up for negotiation.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Communist canadian trying to take my guns away thread confirmed

Lol. “Hey guys I love guns, and totally support gun ownership, but don’t you think your 2A is outdated and stupid?”

 

[ocfightfan]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and very pro gun.

I see the 2nd amendment used all the time by pro gun Americans as a reason why people should be able to keep them, specifically weapons that the media would label an "assault rifle" such as an M4 / AK47 and their variants.

2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

With this in mind, I refer to the Democrat argument (not mine) that the right to bear arms meant muskets, or rifles of the day which were single shot, not semi automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, Uzi's, M4s, AKs and in some cases, automatics that can legally be owned, such as in Florida with a class 2 license.

While owning slaves was at one time allowed and widely accepted, society changed and slavery was outlawed. While I understand that owning slaves wasn't an amendment to the constitution, treaties and deals are changed, withdrawn from or just plain ignored quite frequently.

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ? Yes, I'm aware that pistols are frequently used in mass shootings as well, many of these being semi auto, and having stock 15+ round magazines available to empty before needing to reload.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

For the record I don't like the gun grab that just happened in New Zealand, and I don't like the way Canadian gun laws are going either.

I just don't understand how a lot of people's blanket answer is "the second amendment says..." from 200+ years ago.

Help me out here ?



TL/DR: I don't understand how 2A is an extremely common blanket answer to people's ideas at attempting to reduce gun violence / mass shootings.

Owning slaves is not analogous to owning the means to defend yourself against tyrants and criminals. One is a clear cut moral evil, the other is a clear cut moral good. Also the fact that some people use an object for a horrible purpose does not mean that society should punish a decent law abiding citizen for that misbehavior. Do we outlaw cars because some choose to drive drunk or even run down groups of people with them? Do we outlaw hammers because some use them to bash others in the head?

 

[shankmcgank]

It's unfortunate that a legit question where I'm seeking actual answers has turned into "let's troll the OP".

No wonder you guys are killing each other at record rates.

Idk what part of “shall not be infringed” you’re having trouble with...

The fact it was written 200+ years ago when mass shootings weren't happening literally every week ?

Communist canadian trying to take my guns away thread confirmed

Right. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit obviously.

Constitution is the highest legal document, and requires very specific circumstances to alter. So any law alter gun ownership has to mass muster at that level

Also, it's not the Democrat position that 2a only applies to muskets.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/preventing-gun-violence/

Thanks, I'll check it out.

The second amendment is just a reminder of a right you were born with. Not sure why you think that's up for negotiation.

It was written 200+ years ago before weekly mass shootings, that's why. I'm pretty sure people also have rights not to get murdered at Sandy Hook, Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado or a military base in Texas, among many others.

Lol. “Hey guys I love guns, and totally support gun ownership, but don’t you think your 2A is outdated and stupid?”

I never said it was stupid, I do feel it's outdated considering the current climate and the amount of mass shootings happening. Great post, really added a lot to the discussion.

 

[Sketch]

Shall not be infringed.

 

[shankmcgank]

Owning slaves is not analogous to owning the means to defend yourself against tyrants and criminals. One is a clear cut moral evil, the other is a clear cut moral good. Also the fact that some people use an object for a horrible purpose does not mean that society should punish a decent law abiding citizen for that misbehavior. Do we outlaw cars because some choose to drive drunk or even run down groups of people with them? Do we outlaw hammers because some use them to bash others in the head?

I'll bite.

Let's think about the logistics of banning cars due to drunk driving. Now let's compare the number of gun murders every year to the amount of drunk driving deaths. Cars are quite necessary, people use them to get to work, take their kids to school, soccer practice etc. Besides killing, what are guns good at doing ? Last I checked, an M4 with a 100 round drum isn't getting my daughter to her swimming lessons, neither is an Uzi or a Glock.

In regards to hammers, how many mass hammerings have their been in the history of the United States ? How many deaths were caused ? Why mention just hammers ? I'm sure a spoon has been stabbed into someone's brain before, using that logic, everything would be banned and we would be in loincloths and eating dirt.

 

[Happy Man]

There were rapid fire guns of different types in the days of the founding fathers.

and civilians could own the largest canon they could afford. Just as it is today. With a permit.

 

[all caps]

It's unfortunate that a legit question where I'm seeking actual answers has turned into "let's troll the OP".

No wonder you guys are killing each other at record rates.



The fact it was written 200+ years ago when mass shootings weren't happening literally every week ?



Right. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit obviously.



Thanks, I'll check it out.



It was written 200+ years ago before weekly mass shootings, that's why. I'm pretty sure people also have rights not to get murdered at Sandy Hook, Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado or a military base in Texas, among many others.



I never said it was stupid, I do feel it's outdated considering the current climate and the amount of mass shootings happening. Great post, really added a lot to the discussion.

The second amendment isnt a permission slip.

 

[Happy Man]

Idk what part of “shall not be infringed” you’re having trouble with...

Communist canadian trying to take my guns away thread confirmed

The second amendment is just a reminder of a right you were born with. Not sure why you think that's up for negotiation.

Shall not be infringed.

The second amendment isnt a permission slip.

obligatory

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

It's unfortunate that a legit question where I'm seeking actual answers has turned into "let's troll the OP".

No wonder you guys are killing each other at record rates.



The fact it was written 200+ years ago when mass shootings weren't happening literally every week ?



Right. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit obviously.



Thanks, I'll check it out.



It was written 200+ years ago before weekly mass shootings, that's why. I'm pretty sure people also have rights not to get murdered at Sandy Hook, Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado or a military base in Texas, among many others.



I never said it was stupid, I do feel it's outdated considering the current climate and the amount of mass shootings happening. Great post, really added a lot to the discussion.

Lighten up Francis. I fail to see how joking around with an ignorant TS on the Internet is analogous or in any way related to the cause of mass shootings. Now who’s not taking it seriously?

What’s so important about 200 years ago and what technology was available then? The murder rate now is less than 1/3 what it was then.

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

It’s almost like there’s more to it than guns and sensationalized news stories.

 

[shankmcgank]

There were rapid fire guns of different types in the days of the founding fathers.

and civilians could own the largest canon they could afford. Just as it is today. With a permit.

I got to shoot an uzi on full auto in Florida, I remember saying to my gf that it was the most fun I'd had on the trip. Automatics are banned in Canada, as are rifle magazines with a capacity greater than 5 rounds for anything above a .22, same with pistols.

The range also had a 12.7mm anti tank rifle up on a shelf from WW1 or WW2 for 12 or 15k. It's crazy to me that you can just go buy that type of hardware .

I shot a lot of guns there, people were super friendly and when they heard me talking, they asked where I was from, and started opening up cases and letting me shoot the guns they brought with them to the range. I remember shooting a 1911 A1, Glock in 9, 40 and 45, a Beretta 92 FS Brigadier, a CX4 Storm and a few others I can't remember. Good times.

I'd like to read about those rifles you mentioned if you feel like linking or naming them.

The second amendment isnt a permission slip.

It kinda is.

2A allows one to buy weapons like James Holmes bought and used to kill a lot of people, or Stephen Paddock used in his massacre.

The 2A doesn't tell people to go commit a mass murder, but it allows the people who commit these crimes the ability to buy the weapons they use.

obligatory

You'll have to explain this one to me.

 

[Merlotte's]

You cannot have a well regulated militia consisting of people carrying low capacity pistols while your enemy is capable of wielding far superior firepower. Enemy being either from with within or external.

 

[7437]

It's unfortunate that a legit question where I'm seeking actual answers has turned into "let's troll the OP".

No wonder you guys are killing each other at record rates.



The fact it was written 200+ years ago when mass shootings weren't happening literally every week ?



Right. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit obviously.



Thanks, I'll check it out.



It was written 200+ years ago before weekly mass shootings, that's why. I'm pretty sure people also have rights not to get murdered at Sandy Hook, Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado or a military base in Texas, among many others.



I never said it was stupid, I do feel it's outdated considering the current climate and the amount of mass shootings happening. Great post, really added a lot to the discussion.

The constitution is hard enough to change that its essentially impossible at this point.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Good luck invading 'Murica old school style when even the populace is armed to the teeth. Its a hidden benefit. Mentioning it as a defense against tyranny is beating a dead horse. America can only destroy itself from within. Become the beacon again. Regain honourable intent from top to bottom and it cant be stopped. Continue pushing shallow materialism and identity politics and it shall fall. Guns are far, faaaar from the problem.

 

[7437]

You cannot have a well regulated militia consisting of people carrying low capacity pistols while your enemy is capable of wielding far superior firepower. Enemy being either from with within or external.

At the same time, you cant just let any saudi backed extremist have nuclear weapons on american soil. So we get to find a happy medium where the populace stays armed, within reason.

 

[shankmcgank]

Lighten up Francis. I fail to see how joking around with an ignorant TS on the Internet is analogous or in any way related to the cause of mass shootings. Now who’s not taking it seriously?

What’s so important about 200 years ago and what technology was available then? The murder rate now is less than 1/3 what it was then.

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

It’s almost like there’s more to it than guns and sensationalized news stories.

Your own article states the reasons for the decline in American murder rates, which is still many times higher than countries who don't have a 2A. It's like bragging you won last place.

Interestingly enough, it also fails to mention the rate of mass shootings now, compared to the 1700s.

200 years is important, as I've stated above, due to the changes in society over the last 2 centuries.

I'm not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose, or just don't understand.