The Second Amendment for Muskets Only?

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

The Second Amendment for Muskets Only?

#1

Post by Bad Dragonite » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:55 pm

An educational video:
[MEDIA=youtube]CquUBWHU2_s[/MEDIA]
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#2

Post by The Missing Link » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:30 pm

So.

I do not think the majority leftist argument out there is attempting to say that "the Second Amendment was originally written to apply to muskets" or otherwise small-grade weaponry. I literally have not heard this argument outside of a few fringe cases.

On the contrary, the two questions that remain up in debate are the following:

a. Was the expressed intent of the Second Amendment made to apply more to State militias or to individuals? In other words, because a lot of the historical context regarding even the inclusion of the Second Amendment at the founding of the country was a Federalist concession to the then-anti-Federalists (who were opposed to a strong central government), was the intention to arm the States (as seen in things like the Tenth Amendment) as a means to share not just political but also military power in light of a potential tyrannical government and therefore the personal right to bear arms just happens to be downstream from that... or was it really intended for individuals to own whatever they want whenever they want however they want?

b. In light of or despite the answer to the first question, is it good and necessary for the Second Amendment to apply to the fullest extent of how it was applied back in 1792? Or in other words, were the Founding Fathers so wise and omnipotent in their full knowledge of all things that they intended or believed that this Amendment ought to never be infringed no exceptions ever, or have circumstances changed sufficiently beyond anything that they could have conceived of that would lead them potentially to a different decision today? Or in other words, does society at large believe that society has changed and evolved in such a way to countermand the Second Amendment? After all, the Second Amendment is actually based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which had more or less the same provision, and now the UK has changed their minds on the right of universal gun ownership.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#3

Post by The Missing Link » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:46 pm

accidental doublepost
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

#4

Post by Kil'jaeden » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:35 pm

It is a more common argument than you think. It is more of an attempt to show that the Constitution is inadequate on that front. Or it is an attempt to make people that defend the 2nd Amendment look stupid. They use ignorance of actual gun laws to do the same thing.
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#5

Post by The Missing Link » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:46 pm

^ There are stupid arguments pulled out on both sides of the debate.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22844
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#6

Post by Bomby » Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:24 am

The constitution was written centuries ago. We've since proven ourselves to be completely irresponsible with guns. Reforms are necessary. Who knows what kinds of reforms will work, but what we have now clearly isn't working.

User avatar
LOOT
Banned
Posts: 22939
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 1:00 am
Location: full time jail

#7

Post by LOOT » Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:34 am

I mean I haven't seen enough dead kids yet, clearly there is nothing wrong with the system

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

#8

Post by Kil'jaeden » Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:43 am

Who do they want to give up their guns?
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

#9

Post by Bad Dragonite » Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:48 am

[QUOTE="Bomby, post: 1581104, member: 17840"]The constitution was written centuries ago. We've since proven ourselves to be completely irresponsible with guns. Reforms are necessary. Who knows what kinds of reforms will work, but what we have now clearly isn't working.[/QUOTE]
Have you actually met a licensed gun owner? They're pretty much all seriously some of the most responsible people, just in general.

The most "irresponsible" cases I've seen with guns have all been criminals, criminals who usually get their guns illegally
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22844
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#10

Post by Bomby » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:06 pm

Let's ignore the "have you met"s and look at statistics:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge ... wnership-0

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#11

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:57 pm

[QUOTE="Bomby, post: 1581104, member: 17840"]The constitution was written centuries ago. We've since proven ourselves to be completely irresponsible with guns. Reforms are necessary. Who knows what kinds of reforms will work, but what we have now clearly isn't working.[/QUOTE]

"The constitution was written centuries ago. We've since proven ourselves to be completely irresponsible with freedom of speech. Reforms are necessary. Who knows what kinds of reforms will work, but what we have now clearly isn't working."

Does this sound good to you?

[QUOTE="LOOT, post: 1581106, member: 21459"]I mean I haven't seen enough dead kids yet, clearly there is nothing wrong with the system[/QUOTE]

If we change the system surely there will be no more dead kids. Also, if we wish really hard unicorns and rainbows will prance us off to candy land.

[QUOTE="Bomby, post: 1581154, member: 17840"]Let's ignore the "have you met"s and look at statistics:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge ... wnership-0[/QUOTE]

do those statistics explain why law abiding citizen's rights need to be violated due to criminal activity

User avatar
Calamity Panfan
Moderator
Posts: 32453
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:00 am
Location: if a lot of people love each other the world would be a better place to live
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 22 times

#12

Post by Calamity Panfan » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:06 pm

we can play the "personally I know gun owners that are _______" game as much as we want but I know plenty of licensed gun owners who I would not describe as the "most responsible people" and it actually concerns me that these people own the guns just based on my personal experiences with them.

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, post: 1581159, member: 18119"]"The constitution was written centuries ago. We've since proven ourselves to be completely irresponsible with freedom of speech. Reforms are necessary. Who knows what kinds of reforms will work, but what we have now clearly isn't working."

Does this sound good to you?



If we change the system surely there will be no more dead kids. Also, if we wish really hard unicorns and rainbows will prance us off to candy land.



do those statistics explain why law abiding citizen's rights need to be violated due to criminal activity[/QUOTE]

1. Freedom of Speech is an entirely different thing from the right to bear arms. Mostly because you can't really directly kill people with words. When was the last time somebody walked into a movie theater or a school and speeched a dozen people to death? Plus, we've restricted some free speech because it is dangerous for the well-being of the American people.

2. There will still be dead kids! But wouldn't it be swell if we could decrease the number of dead kids? "Bad people will still get guns," but the point is to make it more difficult for them to get guns in the first place.

3. If you read the article, you'd see that the dangers of gun ownership go beyond criminal activity since it increases chances of fatal accidents and suicide, largely because "the most responsible people, just in general" leave their guns loaded and unlocked in the house.
and that's the waaaaaaaaaay the news goes

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23265
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 10 times

#13

Post by X-3 » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:09 pm

Ban guns and legalize greatbows.

User avatar
Gumchum
Posts: 9997
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 2:00 am
Location: 'MURICA
Been thanked: 1 time

#14

Post by Gumchum » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:31 pm

I'm just curious: Do any of you actually own any guns?

User avatar
LOOT
Banned
Posts: 22939
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 1:00 am
Location: full time jail

#15

Post by LOOT » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:32 pm

do nerf guns count

User avatar
Calamity Panfan
Moderator
Posts: 32453
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:00 am
Location: if a lot of people love each other the world would be a better place to live
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 22 times

#16

Post by Calamity Panfan » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:34 pm

[QUOTE="Gumchum, post: 1581190, member: 15474"]I'm just curious: Do any of you actually own any guns?[/QUOTE]

i had some but during his state of the union address last night obummer secretly sent his obamanauts to the homes of many gun owners and seized millions of guns because he wants to Take Away All Guns. You just probably didn't hear because the Liberal Media doesn't want you to.
and that's the waaaaaaaaaay the news goes

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29027
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Just recently escaped Limbo
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

#17

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:47 pm

You’re at a bar having a smoke on the patio. Obama sidles up to you and trades standard smoker pleasantries. He then asks if he can use your handgun to light his cigarette. He then “accidentally” puts the gun in his own pocket, forcing you to constantly borrow your friend’s handgun for the remainder of the evening.

User avatar
Gumchum
Posts: 9997
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 2:00 am
Location: 'MURICA
Been thanked: 1 time

#18

Post by Gumchum » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:55 pm

Here's why I ask: I've grown up around guns my whole life. I own four of them. I keep them locked up and out of reach of the Little Guy. Be that as it may, I think the Second Amendment absolutely, 100 percent should be regulated. The First Amendment is regulated; you can't walk into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!" There's no reason gun owners — speaking as one — should be opposed to tougher requirements for individuals trying to buy a firearm. If you have nothing to suggest you're a dangerous person, you won't have any trouble buying a firearm, so what the hell are you so worried about? But if you have prior felony or otherwise violent convictions, or a history of mental illness, or drug or alcohol problems, sorry to say, you don't deserve a gun. Tough ****.

Regulation does not equal confiscation, but most gun owners don't see it that way. For example, in 2013, Dick Metcalf, a columnist for Guns & Ammo, wrote an editorial saying not all regulation on guns is a bad thing. Readers flew into a frenzy, blowing his quotes way out of proportion, and G&A subsequently let him go. Read his story here. There's absolutely no room in the gun industry for compromise, and we'll never make headway in that area until that attitude changes.

User avatar
Calamity Panfan
Moderator
Posts: 32453
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:00 am
Location: if a lot of people love each other the world would be a better place to live
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 22 times

#19

Post by Calamity Panfan » Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:11 pm

Absolutely. I don't personally own any guns, and I doubt I ever will but I have no problem with Americans owning guns. I said I know people who own guns that I wouldn't describe a responsible but I also know plenty of people who own multiple guns and are responsible about it, just like you. The way I see it, the way gun laws in America work is flawed and needs reform. I don't know the solution that will work for sure, but stricter background checks and good training so people with guns know how to properly keep them safe for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones seems like a good start.

The thing that bothers me so much is that much of the pro-gun side, or at least the loudest voices, aren't willing to be open-minded about things. If you suggest reform, many people automatically think the thing I joked about, that The Democrats Will Take Away All Guns And Our Freedom. Our politicians aren't trying to take away your guns. If you own them legally and use them safely, you won't have anything to worry about. The Gun Police will not come to your doorstep and search the house and take all the firearms away. I've seen people, friends of mine, say that what people ultimately want is the average person to have no guns and the police and army own all of them, creating a situation like the **** Empire from Star Wars. These are relatively rational people in most aspects comparing people who want a safer general public to Darth **** Vader. I think internet memes have somehow made the American populace even dumber with regards to politics and social issues, but that's another topic altogether.
and that's the waaaaaaaaaay the news goes

User avatar
Gumchum
Posts: 9997
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 2:00 am
Location: 'MURICA
Been thanked: 1 time

#20

Post by Gumchum » Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:21 pm

Yeah, the amount of logical fallacies — particularly Godwin's Law — in regards to Second Amendment debates is astounding. Like most issues in America, this is not a black-and-white issue; there are gray areas. Unfortunately, both sides don't see it that way. I'm still trying to hold out hope that some middle ground will be reached someday, but it's an awfully depressing prospect for now.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”