Is the 2nd Amendment just for muskets?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Ok. So I'm approaching this with a fair mind to just see where it goes. The very first argument is about one minute in:
"But firstly to accept this premise you would have to believe that the founding fathers were so stupid they had never, ever, ever witnessed or anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever."
There you go. No, I don't have to accept that premise, and he doesn't explain it -- he goes on to put on a wig, and then condescendingly explain rocks gave way to sticks, etc. I'm sure that percussion caps, musket balls, gunpowder, rifling, all types of stuff were continuously worked on. I think 1792 was still decades before rapid fire guns were used. I don't have to accept that the founding fathers had "never, ever ever witnessed or anticipated technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever" to conclude that technology outpaced the strict constructionist interpretation of the SA. His very first statement is illogical and he paints his opponent with the most extreme possible "conclusion" they must believe right out of the gate.
Why is an intellectually honest conversation about it so hard?
"But firstly to accept this premise you would have to believe that the founding fathers were so stupid they had never, ever, ever witnessed or anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever."
There you go. No, I don't have to accept that premise, and he doesn't explain it -- he goes on to put on a wig, and then condescendingly explain rocks gave way to sticks, etc. I'm sure that percussion caps, musket balls, gunpowder, rifling, all types of stuff were continuously worked on. I think 1792 was still decades before rapid fire guns were used. I don't have to accept that the founding fathers had "never, ever ever witnessed or anticipated technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever" to conclude that technology outpaced the strict constructionist interpretation of the SA. His very first statement is illogical and he paints his opponent with the most extreme possible "conclusion" they must believe right out of the gate.
Why is an intellectually honest conversation about it so hard?
Lazy lying liberal @syskatine is voting for Hillary who voted to go to war in Iraq. He also endorses Obama killing Americans with out trials. I think this explains everything you need to know about an intellectual conversation happening about constitutional rights.....
You tell me why it's so hard. You have yet to enter into one.
You refuse the premise simply because it's the whole point of your anti-2nd thesis. Take that away, and you really have no argument. It would be at least interesting to see you suspend your silly position that the founders would somehow clutch their pearls and faint at the thought that as weapons tech advanced, so too would the quality of privately owned small arms.
The context of the time is never considered. They had just overthrown the freaking British Empire at the peak of it's power. They weren't concerned with "muskets" or limiting the future firepower of free citizens.
They weren't concerned with "muskets" or limiting the future firepower of free citizens.
What were they concerned with then?
What were they concerned with then?
Making sure the federal government couldn't disarm the people.
so if the 2nd only applies to muskets, where does that put obysmal care? Know there wasn't universal health care back in them ther woods.
They didn't want the federal government to disarm the states. The people are the sovereign, they created the states, the states then created the federal government and gave to it certain powers while retaining all others. This isn't complex.
Several thought the bill of rights where redundant and useless because the powers delegated where few and limited in scope. Where would we be today had the "anti-federalists" not insisted upon a BOR?
Several thought the bill of rights where redundant and useless because the powers delegated where few and limited in scope. Where would we be today had the "anti-federalists" not insisted upon a BOR?
TV, radio, the Internet, etc weren't something even remotely imaginable in 1791. Did the founders intend to limit freedom of the press to the printing presses that existed in their time? If they meant to limit arms to muskets, they certainly meant to restrict freedom of the press to printing presses and quill pens.
When a mob of people are rioting, burning buildings and cars, and targeting whites to beat and rob; I'm damn sure going to be armed with some high capacity firepower in order to protect myself. Am I the only one who remembers Reginald Denny? I'll be damned if I let that happen to me without having the ability to defend myself against superior numbers.
You attempt to pull me out of my car and you'll either be run over or shot.
You attempt to pull me out of my car and you'll either be run over or shot.
Let me tell YOU something. Read this very closely:
If I'm ever drinking coffee and eating some pancakes and you try to mug me, I swear to God I'll shoot you right in the face. You got that, pussy? Pancakes. Face.
Do you agree that consideration is pretty much out the window in this day and age?
Sure. Deal. If I ever try to mug you, please defend yourself. I'd hope you'd do that regardless if it were me. But whatever. Feel superior and condescending. No worries. But if BLM ever blocks the street I'm on and I think they are intent on beating me; it won't end well.
Because there was no standing federal army but a consortium of state organized militia. Go read Federalist 26.
Truth is, I probably wouldn't shoot someone in the face. I haven't even fantasized about it. So what's your contingency plan if BLM thugs triy to carjack you and you have a back seat full of white babies?
What the hell are you talking about? I'm prepared to defend myself. And the 2nd amendment protects my right to do that with a firearm.
I'll take your word for it. You just described an objective that's totally anachronistic.
To allow the states to arm a militia as they see fit. Whether that be an armed citizenry or some other means. Hence, my opposition to the McDonald v City of Chicago decision and my support for states to regulate arms if their constitution and the people of the state allow it.
You won't catch me living in a state that restricts my ownership and I don't necessarily agree with states that do. But I'll defend their right to do so because I believe in self-government and republicanism and I disagree with using the law and the initiation of force in order to push my political views on everyone else.
Hell, I'd hate to ever be in that situation. It wouldn't be fun and it damn sure would haunt me if I ever had to do that. But being prepared for that situation doesn't mean you'd like it. It just means that you're a man and prepared to defend yourself and family.
I feel sorry for you.
My point: they weren't talking about muskets specifically. And they there's nothing to indicate that they out any value in limiting the kinds of personal arms people could own. I think you understood my point.
Yeah, I get your point, but may I make another? The first clause of the SA suggests a policy reason - the security of the state. I don't think you can be intellectually honest and say that the contemporary reason for the SA has to do with state security. You and every single SA supporter on here discuss it as a concept of personal rights. It %#*! says it's to protect the state. I'm not making this shit up, Mega -- look at it The words are there, it's not an illusion.
It suggests one if you reereeallly want it to - to the point that you are totally willing to ignore all context in which it was written. Sure.
All the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that would be a collective right? If I don't have that right individually, how can I have it collectively?
Damn, I like what you're saying, but I have no clue WhoTF you're talking to!
I'm going to miss his constant joy at ignoring someone. I wish we could all extract that kind of joy from the little things.
What is so hard to understand about, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...?" How many different ways can you interpret that some degree of intellectual honesty?
Yeah, I get the context! It's explained in the the opening and it doesn't apply any more!! It was 1792! Now we have an army to protect the state! We don't have volunteer militias that grab a rifle and shoot invaders! It's a very simple analysis, isn't it?
Militia=the whole of the people MINUS the federal government. I know, I know, the actual historical record is meaningless to you. Intellectual honesty and all.
Why don't you explain what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means? And how is that meaning relevant today? Be sure to include the phrase "security of a free state" in your answer.
And what's so hard to understand about creating a right to protect the state? If the articulated function of the right has disappeared then there's no reason to protect the right. If you want guns, fine. If you have reasons, fine. But don't say it's the SA. Conservatives routinely molest the SA and do all kinds of mental gymnastics instead of addressing the very words of the second amendment, and then accuse their opponents of being the activist!!! Anachronisms may be recognized - truthfully acknowledging that times have changed and certain policy considerations are now mooted is common sense. I wish someone was intellectually honest enough to say, "The SA is obviously an anachronism, but we still need guns because...."
I don't understand what you're saying. If you had a collective right like national self defense, but not the personal right to have my own fully armed Apache helicopter, what what happens? Would the earth melt? Would God be displeased? You tell me, I can't see that it's a problem.
There it is: skirts up. Every time. Every. single. time. You guys juuuuust can't go off script.
Well I don't know what collective right you're talking about and I was trying to talk about your collective right. What collective right if not self defense? You didn't answer my question though -- what DOES happen if you have a collective but not individual right?
Yes -- we have the right to defend ourselves from foreign invaders. As a country we have exercised that right.
Let me answer it for you:
It is my right to self defense. However, I may along with the rest of my fellow countrymen, grant that power to the government to create a standing army or navy in order to defend against those that would deprive us of our freedoms. However, it is still my right. I'm just allowing it to be done on my behalf. Bestowing them the power to do it on my behalf doesn't remove the individual right of mine.
It is my right to self defense. However, I may along with the rest of my fellow countrymen, grant that power to the government to create a standing army or navy in order to defend against those that would deprive us of our freedoms. However, it is still my right. I'm just allowing it to be done on my behalf. Bestowing them the power to do it on my behalf doesn't remove the individual right of mine.
Similar threads
