I did and found conflicting results. One saying it does have impact, another that it doesn’t
I think this is still where things are at.
The Declaration of Independence and the men who wrote it were products of their time.
Perhaps they would react with abject horror at the idea of an automatic weapon? After all, both the Gatling Gun and the Mitrailleuse in the second half of the 19th century were created with the idea to make wars impossible as such “inhumane” weapons would cause horrendous casualties… After all, the FFs were influenced by the beginnings of the French Enlightenment so it’s not such a big stretch.
Of course, that’s idle speculation as the biggest pitfall to assign timeless meanings to a single line that was primarily written to ensure that troops are available to ward off potential British invasions …
What the founding fathers would have thought about automatic weapons (or grenade launchers, silencers, bump stocks, or other types of weapons) is a rich topic for speculation. However, it’s actually tangential.
The 2nd amendment is fairly clear on its own without speculation about intent. If the clear meaning is no longer good policy in present day, the amendment itself should be changed. If it isn’t changed, the clear meaning should be followed.
1 Like
Perhaps. Perhaps they would react with abject horror that the US government has thousands of nuclear weapons that could be used to wipe out all life on earth 100x over?
I’m all for the fun of speculation, though.
Like you, I would call it ‘compiling information.’ Research involves hypotheses and conclusions, not merely compiling information. And it is on this score that the Dickey Amendment had its severe chilling effect.
Actually, you are understating the amount of research by a full 50%. It’s true that, in the wake of Sandy Hook, the POTUS ordered the CDC to do some gun research. And they conducted not one study, but TWO. Two. Studies. For a public-health issue that kills ~32K Americans/year–roughly the same number as die in MVAs.
And you want to claim this as supporting your position?
BTW, regarding further research:
“Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no.”
I did not speculate that a gun fetish was a major driver of gun violence, and thus won’t be responding to this mischaracterization.
At least y’all are consistent in mischaracterizing my position.
If you look upthread, you’ll see how Maine’s peaceful gun enthusiasts as well as the “gun nut culture” (your term, not mine) contribute to the problem.
There is indeed a cultural issue there that needs to change. But it is only a part of the larger problem.
Citation, please, for a SCOTUS decision interpreting the 2A as protecting the rights of individuals to own and possess artillery outside of the context of a militia.
Not according to the Constitution, which specifically makes Treason a crime (one of the very few criminal statutes to be found in the document).
You miss the point. My point is you cannot say with certainty what the Founders would have thought today. So when either Kimmel or Shapiro claim to know what the Founders would think today they are both wrong. Let ago of your bias, something neither Kimmel nor Shapiro did. They want the Founders to have believed what they want them to have believed and constructed an argument to “prove” they are right. I’m saying we don’t know what they would have thought so it’s pointless to state what we think they would have thought as fact when it is speculation.
Treason against a tyrannical government, huh? That’s an interesting angle.
You say that you think they expected citizens to own this weaponry however they could not have anticipated what that weaponry would actually be so we can’t say what they would have expected had they been able to anticipate it (i.e., could they have even comprehended what an atomic bomb is?). That’s the problem with your argument. The Founders could only think about their present and the near future, they could not have made considerations for what we face today.
If they knew how much a fighter would cost I could bet that they wouldn’t have expected enough private citizens could own one to make a difference. I mean, they would have expected Bill Gates to own and fly an F-16?
Perhaps they would react with abject horror at the idea we have a problem with middle aged men impregnating teenagers.
1 Like
One with evidence and reason, one without. No they did not do the same thing. The founders were OK with highly deadly military weapons in civilian hands. That is known. To take away rifles you’d need to offer some compelling reasons why it would be different. None has been presented. By the same token, you must be in favor of throwing out the whole constitution, because we just don’t know what they’d think today. The fact is they believed civilians owning military weapons was a FUNDAMENTAL inalienable human right. While they aren’t here to “take it back” they certainly believed it timeless back then. Hence they wrote it down in our governmental contract right along side freedom of religion and speech. Kimmel made up something based on ignorance. Shapiro interpolated using facts and reason and didn’t have the burden of proof to begin with.
Well, I said I think they would have expected portions of the citizenry to own the military equivalent in the future, which is pretty much in line with what was occurring in the late 1700s.
Yes, they could not have imagined where weaponry would be in 21st-century. Yes, they may have changed their tune.
I’m not really sure what you’re even trying to argue here?
Soooo, you think the founders wouldn’t support 1st amendment rights extending to communication or protest over the internet, for example? Do you think the founders would have been okay with the police illegally searching a person’s hard drive because they couldn’t comprehend a hard drive?
I hope not because the medium isn’t what’s relevant. It’s what is being protected. Speech, defense, etc… and by extension liberty. Particularly against authoritarian governments.
They wouldn’t expect him to do anything. No one has to buy arms.
Lol, whut?
Based on the experiences of local law enforcement (I personally know 5 my age alone, 2 of whom now smoke rec for stress), local emergency services (I personally know 3 my age alone, 1 of whom now smokes rec), and a wide range of dealers and users (insert math here).
Also there’s been a decent number of stats out of CO/WA/CA/MI that show increases in rec usage. They’re just not overly scientific ways of gathering data (stoners are too lazy man).
There’s also the rec stats that come from EU. I operate somewhat under the assumption that we’re not all that different from EU, especially considering 'Murica loves it some vices.
1 Like
That’s cool I suppose. I guess we’ll have to chat again in a few years when data is more readily available.
1 Like
A poorly educated comedian who has decided that for some reason he is smart enough and educated enough to talk about political issues is criticizing another comedian for doing the same.
I’m not watching that moron for 20 minutes but he did bring up how it makes sense to have a travel ban for Muslims, in order to keep terrorists out, but he must have forgotten that the San Bernardino and Pulse nightclub shooters were born here.
Civilians who were part of a well-regulated militia, perhaps. Also, they were OK with it at the time, with the people at that time.
They also didn’t give women the right to vote nor end slavery. I suppose those things should have been timeless as well.
No, when Shapiro says what the Founders would have thought he does have the burden of proof.
I also have not taken a position on gun rights as that was not my point. I’m simply pointing out errors in an argument that happens to be pro guns. I can judge an argument apart from my personal beliefs.
Bill Gates is one of the few who could afford a fighter so they would have expected people like him to do it. And you used the word expect.
I’m not sure what you are arguing since you agree with my main point: they may have changed their tune.What they expected based on what they knew is not the same as what they would have expected had they known.
I never mentioned the 1st Amendment. IMO, I believe they would have wanted all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights to exist but maybe they would have changed some things. I would not discount the idea that they would have been pragmatic and not dogmatic ideologues. One of their influences was Machiavelli.
Jefferson impregnated a teen age Sally Hemings when he was in his 40s. And at the time it was perfectly acceptable. Times change.
Amendments to the Constitution dealt with both of those issues. No Amendment to the Constitution has ever limited the Second Amendment. Heck, the Fourteenth Amendment can be said to have expanded the Second Amendment, if you buy into the Incorporation Doctrine.
I shouldn’t have.
Ya, the feelings are mutual I guess because I have no idea what your point is aside from speculating that the founders might have changed their tune if they were magically teleported to 2017.
Okay…
They wrote the Bill of Rights specifically to ensure certain freedoms/protections against the government. They almost didn’t include it because they thought it was a no-brainer, but thank goodness they did.
Right, I did… To illustrate a point.
Sooo, you think they’d be cool with illegally searching someone’s computer or making federal laws prohibiting online speech?
I have no idea what the point of this comment or the last comment is. It’s completely out in left field.