See what I’m saying? You even added another variable: times of war. I’m not saying what they would have thought about gun laws today. I’m saying they were smart enough to differentiate between a purpose of a weapon and, as you just mentioned, circumstances.
Who TF is shapiro, and why should I care?
The FF’s were fine with citizens owning naval cannons, sloops and frigates. They were the exact same vessels used for commerce at the time. To use them for war you just had to go actually make war with them. That’s what the FF’s paid private citizens to do. You’re barking up the wrong tree here.
Yes, they may have been fine THEN but would they be fine with citizens owning them today? No one can answer that one way or another. It’s impossible to know since we can’t speak to the dead.
Okay, but how much of that is because people have turned to it as a treatment option? In other words, had weed been seen as a treatment option 20 years ago would we still have seen an uptick in usage? Or, had it been legalized 20 years ago would we have still seen an uptick in usuage?
I really have a hard time believe people are smoking marijuana more now simply because it’s legal to do so in some places.I think it has a lot more to do with the acceptability of smoking it/how mainstream it has become. Basically the opposite of cigarettes.
I thought we already went down this road… First, I’m talking in generalities, ie, that the laws, such as drug laws, do not significantly change consumption. Not that zero people won’t avoid drugs because they’re illegal.
Second, this is apples to walnuts as you put, but I’ll play along.
Third, if people want 4g enough, yes, a significant number of people would find a way to get it. Drugs are a perfect example of this. People want drugs, period. The DEA has spent billions of dollars combating this and basically, nothing has changed. Alcohol prohibition is another. Organized crime was born out of prohibition because the demand for alcohol was there.
I think you’d see a margin shift at best. People that want to ruin their lives do it regardless of what the law says.
Right. I don’t really care what Shapiro says I don’t follow the guy. I was just pointing out in early US history warships and merchant ships were very similar and at the time did the same thing.
We can read what they wrote, though, and it seems unlikely to me that they’d be fine with US citizens being at a disadvantage to the US military.
They didn’t plan for the military we have today nor the technology. I mean, they would have expected non-military citizens to own fighters or tanks? Who could have afforded them, especially in numbers that would equal the military?
They planned to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government regardless of future circumstances.
I bet they expected portions of the citizenry to own the military equivalent in the future, yes.
I do doubt they anticipated how truly massive our military would become. Adam’s and Jefferson struggled to get appropriations for a couple of warships to fight the Barbary pirates. Jefferson finally did as President, but it wasn’t easy.
1 Like
There was NO legal distinction. There was no distinction made between personal weapons and military weapons. There was no distinction made between a single shot pistol and an artillery packed warship capable of orders of magnitude more death and destruction than modern machine guns. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that since the founders drew 2nd amendment protections for warships, they’d be more than okay with modern rifles, even if full auto. Maybe, MAYBE you have some room to talk about grenade launchers and that sort of weapon, but no, not rifles. The founders were well acquainted with weaponry far more powerful and deemed them appropriate for private hands without restriction.
TBH, I’m not sure. I don’t think it’s possible to reliably determine this.
I’m literally a living example of someone that started smoking because it became semi legal in the area. A TON of it is because it’s simply less risky to get ahold of it now. The dynamic has changed to a pretty absurd level. The risk reward ratio across the board is fundamentally different.
Did fully auto weapon laws not significantly change consumption? If there’s a stat showing the number didn’t actually change to a meaningful level, I’m more than happy to eat my words here.
Right, so you have a case to argue against tanks. Who are you arguing against though?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The part leading up to the second comma is only explanatory in nature and does not limit the scope of the successive prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. It’s written in plain English understandable to the common man and no amount of rambling legal interpretations or arguments about the times changing mitigates that. To a rational person any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms indicates that the second amendment doesn’t mean what it says in plain English, which ultimately leads to it not meaning anything at all.
This is not to say that I think all regulation of arms has to be bad, but only that it violates the second amendment. I would be interested to see a sensible proposal for an amendment of the second amendment that would preserve the general right to keep and bear arms while allowing a framework for reasonable regulation. But the totalitarian risk of allowing government to make judgment calls about when certain parts of the Constitution can be ignored is too great.
3 Likes
Okay, that’s fine, but one person a sample size does not make. I, personally, would not smoke even it were legal because it just doesn’t interest. I have honestly never met a person (other than you I guess) that doesn’t smoke for the sole reason that it’s illegal.
I guess I’m not expressing myself very well here. In some cases, there are substitute goods consumers switch to under various circumstances. In this case, the difference between a fully automatic and a semi-automatic is not enough, at least imo, to cause people to resort to black market purchases or to even jump through ATF hoops. Semi-auto AR-15s, for example, are readily available with minimum hassle. In MD you have to wait until your background check is done.
This is essentially where I fall as well. I think, because of how difficult it would be to amend the 2A, people try to interpret the 2A in all kinds of contorted ways.
We’ve talked about this on here before, I think (and I support) amending the 2A to be more in line with 21st-century life. I do not; however, endorse modern day interpretations of the 2A taking liberties because times have changed.
I’ve met and personally know, literally dozens. This is most likely, largely, an age and social circle difference.
Agreed. Which is why I originally said banning bump stocks is worthless.
That doesn’t, by any stretch, mean banning of anything else is worthless by default. We ban things in this country all the time and see significant changes. It’s about impacting the risk/reward ratio.
Edit: quick real life example on the risk/reward changes we’ve seen
Currently, in Ohio (not sure if it’s county specific), you can travel, in a car, with up to HALF A POUND of Marijuana, and the punishment for being caught is a traffic ticket and confiscation of your goods. It’s been decriminalized THAT much.
10 years ago, half a pound would land you ~25 years in prison on trafficking charges.
Ya, it was hyperbole on my part. However, I think I’ve demonstrated that there are a lot of examples where banning something doesn’t do a whole lot, though.
So, are people transporting marijuana more now? I don’t really follow the relevance.
Even the example of cocaine only looks at one side of the equation right? Apart from prohibition, which ended generations ago, are there examples of banning/unbanning something and NOT seeing a large shift in usage? Seeing the before/after seems like what’s important in this regard.
An absurd amount more. Because the punishment for getting caught with it has dropped drastically. Demand saw a huge boost (because you don’t have to be worried about ruining your entire life driving home with it). Supply saw a huge boost (because you can instantly become a small time dealer in the surrounding area by obtaining a medical card).
Before: Risk of carrying half a pound (that’s a lot of weed for 1 person) was ~25 years in prison with rapists and murderers.
After: Risk of carrying half a pound is ~$80 fine and losing your weed.
The banning/unbanning of something doesn’t happen all that often. There are only so many examples and I think marijuana is a poor example to support that banning/unbanning forces a shift in supply and demand because of the medical angle.
One of the more recent ones I can think of is the assault rifle ban and there was no evidence to support a shift one way or the other.
We can also look at gun violence and many of the areas with the strictest laws still having some of the worst gun violence stats. Of course, the issue here is there’s no outright ban in effect. IIRC, the homicide rate increased in DC when their ban was in effect.
I still find it hard to believe it the law changing is the catalyst for the shift.
Okay, but I still don’t follow how that’s relevant. Did usage go up because transportation laws changed?
I get it falls in line with the same reason to not like the comparison, but recreational usage also went WAY up when it became “less illegal.”
Transportation laws didn’t change. Possession laws changed. Looking back I realize now that was unclear.
To answer your question though, usage went through the roof when the laws changed. Mainly because the punishment carries the same weight as jaywalking.
I’m googling it and not find anything on recreational usage?
The law was only changed about 1.5ish years ago. I wouldn’t expect much “conclusive” data yet.
Other side of that coin is since it’s still ranked with heroine at the federal level, there isn’t much research on this topic being done (trying to avoid putting on the Zep brand tinfoil hat).