Yes, that's how you interpret it, others see it differently as the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not black or white as pro gun supporters would like to believe. I already stated this previously and it's a topic for a whole other discussion.
The bill of rights was felt to be unneeded due to the constitution restricting the federal government so much...and yet, here we sit with one of the first 10 amendments covering the arming of able bodied citizens.
So...
Genuine question:
When did the first laws restricting private ownership of cannons, mortars, or large volumes of gun powder get put on the books? Because those were around with the writing of the Constitution, and can cause more destruction than a even a modern rifle.
Yes, that's how you interpret it, others see it differently as the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not black or white as pro gun supporters would like to believe. I already stated this previously and it's a topic for a whole other discussion.
The first true gun control laws were aimed at restricting freed slaves in the South from possessing weaponry after the Civil War. Kinda makes it hard to burn crosses on people's lawns if they can shoot you . . .
There are plenty of writings by the Founders as to their intent with the 2nd Amendment, as well as the others. Just because you don't like to interpret it in the same way doesn't mean they were wrong.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
- George Washington
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
Dishonest? He said 1576.
Cartridges? Paper. They existed long before brass did.
Firearm design far from stagnated. The industrial revolution and ability to communicate have fundamentally changed the world.
Would you like to include forum members here as well? Or are you of the opinion that finding crazy people on the internet is hard and unheard of?
Lol! Were you trying to make my point with those quotes? Because you did
And now, the splitting of the finest hairs. I said nearly 200 years. X-man took exception to that, willfully overlooking the fact that 165 years is "nearly 200 years".
Paper cartridges never made breech loaders practical- they just made muzzle loaders easier to use. They were invented prior to the flintlock-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)#History
The founders didn't know much of anything about firearms that hadn't been known for generations.
The industrial revolution began in England circa 1760. They did their best to keep it at home to support a mercantile empire. It wasn't much in evidence in N America until after independence, really not until 1800 or so.
https://www.eliwhitney.org/7/museum/about-eli-whitney/factory
Quibble over a few years from that date if you want.
What did they do wrt firearms using these new processes? Mostly they made even more smoothbore flintlocks in various configurations for the next 40 years, gradually shifting to caplocks from 1820 onward.
Said no one, ever.
May need to go back and re-read some posts, skippy, I never said anything of the sort.
If by "no one" you mean you and Jhhnn,then yes!
prices drop yet?
If you don't believe that those arguments have been made in favor of a complete ban on firearms then that's all you. When you feel the need to reply and say that those arguments have never been made in favor of a complete ban on firearms and I kindly let you off the hook you should just take it.
If you want to defend your claim then defend it, only you can understand what you meant and what criteria your claim was based on because you didn't say... probably so you could weasel out of it even though I let you off free and clear.
Well then I guess I stand by my factually correct statement that no one has ever said what you quoted
Put up or shut up bitch
The first true gun control laws were aimed at restricting freed slaves in the South from possessing weaponry after the Civil War. Kinda makes it hard to burn crosses on people's lawns if they can shoot you . . .
There are plenty of writings by the Founders as to their intent with the 2nd Amendment, as well as the others. Just because you don't like to interpret it in the same way doesn't mean they were wrong.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
- George Washington
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
If it's factual then you clearly have evidence. I'll wait. I can quote from Kuhn about falsification if you'd like.
And now, the splitting of the finest hairs. I said nearly 200 years. X-man took exception to that, willfully overlooking the fact that 165 years is "nearly 200 years".
Lol! Were you trying to make my point with those quotes? Because you did
Obama, as explained already, had zero to do with banning any sort of ammo or it's rise in price.
Too bad facts aren't treated like bullets. You guys would be a lot smarter with all the hoarding you'd be doing
Neither multishot firearms nor rifling were commonplace in 1789 - but they were KNOWN. Only a moron would argue that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen such things until they become commonplace. That's when morons become aware of things, not when smart people become aware of them.Rifling was invented in the 1500's, it wasn't common place until the nineteenth century. The first mass produced multi shot firearm (colt) was made in 1835. Percussion caps were invented in 1807 and in general use around 1825.
The 2nd amendment, based on the English bill of 1689 (that's a whole other topic for debate) was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Your perception of time is skewed by your distance from it. 30 years ago would you have predicted the importance of the internet? It's been around for over 30 years afterall. No? Then why the fuck would you assume anyone else in history could make any reasonable guess as to what the future would bring?
Your argument is stupid and backed up by ZERO facts!
Yep, and Washington especially was crucially aware of the need for interchangeable parts. Already armories were specializing, with master smiths working on barrels and locks and journeymen working on less critical pieces. Interchangeable parts and tooling were the remaining pieces required to bring firearm manufacturing into true mass production, which by 1778 had been known in crossbows, ships and other goods for literally centuries.Hey, I'm not the one who started arguing about the 2nd Amendment. I don't know who the hell did. But you're the one carrying on with it.
Your same argument however can be applied to...well, everything. The founding fathers saw the foundations for the industrial revolution being laid down, but since they are dimwits, had no idea what it meant. They never though free speech would evolve past yelling and printing things on a Gutenberg press. So bullhorns that are powered, internet, phone calls and such are clearly not protected under the first amendment. They wanted free speech, but not THIS much free speech!
It isn't dishonest to assert that the founding fathers knew progress would happen. If they wanted muskets only to be approved, they would have said as much. They left painted the bill of rights with very broad brush strokes for a damn good reason. Go read about the constitutional convention and all the details. Or don't. I don't give a fuck.
The founding fathers also had seen interchangeable parts (at least, Jefferson had - around the time of the constitutional convention.) IE, they saw the beginnings of weapons being mass produced.
Go read the heller decision, which very much looked at the intent of the 2nd.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Well, now at least we know what kind of moron would be standing around Kitty Hawk NC in December 1904 and not have a clue that the world just changed.Remarkable effort, if entirely dishonest. The flintlock was introduced in 1610, 167 years (nearly 200 years, as I said) prior to the Revolutionary war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
The Ferguson rifle was never adopted in large numbers because it was fundamentally unreliable, as this article illustrates-
http://johno.myiglou.com/ferguson.htm
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/fergusonrifle.html
It would likely jam before 10 rounds were ever fired, black powder being what it is. The ability to machine parts to the close tolerances required was extremely limited, as well. Only 200 were ever produced & only 2 exist today. It was not until the introduction of brass cartridges circa 1845 that breech loaders became practical at all.
Neither percussion ignition (unknown during the revolutionary war) nor rifled barrels were US military issue until the 1840's-
http://www.military.com/army-birthday/history-of-us-army-weapons.html
Early flintlock Pepperboxes were merely multibarreled smoothbore pistols with the barrel rotated by hand & the pan reprimed for every shot. Early revolvers (introduced circa 1600, 176 years prior to 1776) were mere curiosities given the limitations of black powder & flint. The notion that they were reliable is absurd. They were rare & awkward toys of the aristocracy, mostly for show, until 1819 when Elisha Collier introduced the first half assed reliable flintlock revolver, well after the revolutionary war.-
http://www.military.com/army-birthday/history-of-us-army-weapons.html
I'm pretty sure that the founders couldn't see any of that in their crystal balls, let alone the development of brass cartridges in the 1840's & smokeless powder in 1884 that spawned a whole new revolution in firearms pioneered by Browning & others.
But that would leave them soooo much time on their hands!Kind of thinking the left shouldn't argue about things they have no clue about. But what do I know?
Hey, Mike and Rampant.
Time for education....But that would leave them soooo much time on their hands!
Hey Robert!
Thanks, and well said.I'm giving the points to werepossum. There are simply too many examples of progression of firearms around the time the constitution was written to pretend that its authors were only aware of single shot muskets, invented well before any of them were born.
And in any case, the 2nd was of course intended to defend up to and including against military (hence the word militia) such that if the military's arms progress so too must those of the people fighting the enemy military.