Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

EMNofSeattle · Dec 27, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
How about the that private individuals at the time owned cannons?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a private indivual can, at least under federal law, own a muzzle loading cannon of civil war vintage with no restriction if they wanted since the NFA and GCA don't include muzzle loaders, in fact under federal law a felon could legally own a pepper box revolver or a percussion cap pistol no?

KYGlockster · Dec 27, 2012

No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from printing presses.

The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.

If their arguement were true, then we could own any current firearm with NO restrictions, because the Constitution was ratified in 1789, meaning the Commerce Clause would ONLY apply to 1789, right? If this is the case, then items of today could not be regulated under this clause because they did not exist then, right? This would work for me.

I wish the Commerce Clause was very clear as to its intent. Well, it is clear to me, but not to those in Congress and SCOTUS. Trade can be regulated between the states by the FG, but it does not say individual products can be regulated simply because they crossed state lines. The entire meaning of the Commerce Clause has been abolished, as has the meaning and intent of the rest of the Constitution.

Freedom1Man · Dec 27, 2012

KYGlockster said:
No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from manual printing presses.

The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.

They did have vehicles back in the day. They were in the form of carriages, wagons, ships, etc.

Interesting to note, 4 horse each weighing 1000lb each pulling a wagon that was 2000lbs(?) for a total of 6000lbs no license no age restriction and a mind of it's own. Car less than 4000lbs must be 16, have license, and it does not have a mind of it's own.

Pejerrey · Dec 27, 2012

KYGlockster said:
No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from printing presses.

The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.

If their arguement were true, then we could own any current firearm with NO restrictions, because the Constitution was ratified in 1789, meaning the Commerce Clause would ONLY apply to 1789, right? If this is the case, then items of today could not be regulated under this clause because they did not exist then, right? This would work for me.

I wish the Commerce Clause was very clear as to its intent. Well, it is clear to me, but not to those in Congress and SCOTUS. Trade can be regulated between the states by the FG, but it does not say individual products can be regulated simply because they crossed state lines. The entire meaning of the Commerce Clause has been abolished, as has the meaning and intent of the rest of the Constitution.

Dang man, very well said!
O..o

Barnett3006 · Dec 27, 2012

Xulld said:
Except that it wasn't invented as of the writing of the document in question.

I remember that weapon, but its really not a firearm as we currently define it is it?

The whole game being played favors the anti's argument, like many of their arguments its tangential at best, and ignores the core concepts of the document to begin with, AND ignores the process of amending the constitution, but I digress and none of that matters to them anyways.

For me it was just academic. I am literally that nerdy . . .

Not by the ATF's definition of a firearm; but it did have a "large capacity" magazine that held 21 "rounds", could fire 30 shots (before the reservoir had to be changed) that are comparable in velocity and energy to today's 45 acp, was accurate to 150 yards and could except an eeeevil bayonet...sounds to me like the morons in the media would have an absolute hissy-fit over it.

I totally agree with your second point, but I had to point out the 98 year discrepancy.

eye95 · Dec 28, 2012

The arms that the 2A was talking about then--and still talks about today--are the kinds of personally carried arms that normally have a civilian purpose (including, but not limited to, hunting and self-defense) but could also, in a pinch, be used as a military weapon. Yes, the firearms of that day were more primitive than today's, but they were going up against more primitive weapons should they be used for self-defense or for militia service. Today's equivalent would be handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, knives, and the like.

It is a good question whether fully automatic firearms would qualify for the above definition, but I don't feel the need to try, as fully automatic is overkill that results in underkill, so I really don't care. What would not fall under the above definition would be crew-served weapons, nukes, biochem agents, and the like.

One more thing: TVs did not exist when the 1A was written. Is television programming therefore not protected speech?

It does not matter the technological level of the device, just whether it is typically used for a protected purpose in today's world. It is the action, not the device, that is protected.

FreeInAZ · Dec 28, 2012

For all those who say let's go back to muskets....

Remember in the time of the revolutionary war, the musket was the M16 of the day. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure "we the people" can repel tyrants from both abroad and within our own country! With weapons on par to what those tyrants would use against us.:shocker:

LkWd_Don · Dec 28, 2012

BOOMcat12B said:
So I was on FB this morning and saw this as someone's status-

All this talk about gun control or none is kinda annoying... how many more INNOCENT lives have to be lost?? Oh and just so everyone knows, when our founding fathers put the right to have guns they definitely didn't have semi automatic guns!! Sorry, just saying

And this was my response-

Prohibition failed...Folks still got booze. AR's (those evil black looking guns) were banned in CT and yet they were still used in the spree shooting. So tell me how did gun control help? Let em ask you this... Even though the founding fathers did not have Semi autos, what do you think the point of the second amendment was? Why did they make it # 2 in our BOR? That would imply it being rather important considering the BOR was the MAJOR rights out founding fathers thought we should have. So what happens if we lose our right to arm ourselves? Well that would allow the government free rein to do as they please, as no one would have the equipment to stop them. Another way to look at it is by thinking of your children... Would you like to protect them from murders, pedophiles, and criminals in general? Let's say you get robbed at knife point and just happen to move to slowly and the robber slits your throat, then slits your partners throat. Then your children are put into foster care, and they are subjected to a really bad life and grow up maladjusted to the real world, including behavior problems, lack of an ability to concentrate and mental instability due to massive physiological trauma wrought early in their lives. However if you were armed and a robber pulled a knife, you simply pull, aim, fire. Guess what you live, keep your money and your children do not grow up with out parents. Oh and I used a knife just as an example...Guess who does not care about laws? Criminals. Guess who will have a gun no matter what the government says? Criminals. Even if the robber is packing a firearm, with proper situational awareness and thinking you can still eliminate the threat and save your life as well as that of your children. However if uncle Sam takes away our guns then you stand roughly a 0% chance of doing anything to protect your family. Just food for thought.

I am curious what you guys think of my response as well as what you all might of said in reply to the post. I understand I was slightly graphic but sometimes telling someone the cold hard brutal truth of worse case scenarios can be like a cold water wake up. Do you think this is going to far? I fear there will be more posts like this and more arguments coming in the future and I would like a better grasp and idea/plan of action for situations like this.

Thanks for your time and have a good one,.

The reason for the 2nd has been widely discussed here on this and other forums, but there are many out in the US cyber-world who have no idea, because a lot of Education curriculum no longer cover it. That is also evident in your thinking that there was a reason that the 2nd is the 2nd. It might have actually been the 3rd or 4th when originally proposed, as there were 12 Amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights. 10 or those 12 were initially adopted (read that as ratified) and became the Bill of Rights. There are now 11 of those first 12 that have been ratified, as our 27th amendment was one of the first 12. It was first proposed on September 25, 1789 and was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am27.html

So to say that there is any specific correlation to importance or reasoning behind the position or numbering of the amendments, would be mistaken unless you can show proof to support that contention.

KYGlockster · Dec 28, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
They did have vehicles back in the day. They were in the form of carriages, wagons, ships, etc.

Interesting to note, 4 horse each weighing 1000lb each pulling a wagon that was 2000lbs(?) for a total of 6000lbs no license no age restriction and a mind of it's own. Car less than 4000lbs must be 16, have license, and it does not have a mind of it's own.

I should have said "automobiles."

KYGlockster · Dec 28, 2012

eye95 said:
The arms that the 2A was talking about then--and still talks about today--are the kinds of personally carried arms that normally have a civilian purpose (including, but not limited to, hunting and self-defense) but could also, in a pinch, be used as a military weapon. Yes, the firearms of that day were more primitive than today's, but they were going up against more primitive weapons should they be used for self-defense or for militia service. Today's equivalent would be handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, knives, and the like.

It is a good question whether fully automatic firearms would qualify for the above definition, but I don't feel the need to try, as fully automatic is overkill that results in underkill, so I really don't care. What would not fall under the above definition would be crew-served weapons, nukes, biochem agents, and the like.

One more thing: TVs did not exist when the 1A was written. Is television programming therefore not protected speech?

It does not matter the technological level of the device, just whether it is typically used for a protected purpose in today's world. It is the action, not the device, that is protected.

The Second Amendment absolutely protects our right to own full-automatic firearms. When those around in 1934, '68 and '86 allowed the government to restrict our ability to aquire these firearms they allowed the Federal Government to take power that was never granted to them. Now that we have FIRMLY had the NFA for 44 years, it will be hard to argue against its constitutionality.

However, these weapons are certainly covered because they are arms.

Nuclear weapons, heavy bombs and certain other products would certainly NOT be covered because they are weapons of mass destruction.

I do believe that grenades and similiar objects would be covered because they are similiar to the cannon, and it was owned by civiliians. They are also arms that can be easily carried on the person and kept in a home.

Whether one round is fired per pull of the trigger or many are fired should be irrelevant. These are identical weapons with only minute differences in the fire control components.

LkWd_Don · Dec 28, 2012

KYGlockster said:
The Second Amendment absolutely protects our right to own full-automatic firearms. When those around in 1934, '68 and '86 allowed the government to restrict our ability to aquire these firearms they allowed the Federal Government to take power that was never granted to them. Now that we have FIRMLY had the NFA for 44 years, it will be hard to argue against its constitutionality.
However, these weapons are certainly covered because they are arms.

Nuclear weapons, heavy bombs and certain other products would certainly NOT be covered because they are weapons of mass destruction.

I do believe that grenades and similiar objects would be covered because they are similiar to the cannon, and it was owned by civiliians. They are also arms that can be easily carried on the person and kept in a home.

Whether one round is fired per pull of the trigger or many are fired should be irrelevant. These are identical weapons with only minute differences in the fire control components.

I mostly agree with your statements, yet I might suggest that the reason why even full auto is actually protected by the 2A is that when the framers of our constitution presented the various amendments and the people ratified them, it was understood that American Citizens should be as equally armed as the offensive Army that they might be called upon to fight, and to suppress or repel an insurrection by or against our Government. To be so equally armed, as technology advanced, our rights to such technology should also have advanced.

I fully agree that prior to 1934, all civilians could own automatic weapons, and that in 1986 that ability was restricted further.

There are only a couple of States at this time, that do not permit private ownership of Automatic Weapons at all.

Freedom1Man · Dec 28, 2012

KYGlockster said:
I should have said "automobiles."

Okay.

The Lewis and Clark expedition had a semi automatic rifle.... Something for people to think about and remember.

eye95 · Dec 28, 2012

Again, I am not arguing whether fully automatic firearms would fit the definition of protected arms as I explained above. I don't care whether I may or may not carry them. The capability they provide is of minimal efficacy. When we bog ourselves down in fighting for the minutiae, we lose focus on the real goal of our efforts. Worse, by fighting for automatic firearms, we play into the emotional argument put forth by the antis, scaring the pants off the ignorant public. It is just not the wise way to proceed.

I will continue to fight for the right to carry semi-automatic firearms and to educate the ignorant public as to the difference between semi-auto and auto, because it is the confusion of the two that just might get a new "AWB" put in place.

Now, to continue educating...anyone got Bloomberg's number? His ignorance seems to be more apparent than that of most others.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

sudden valley gunner · Dec 28, 2012

eye95 said:
Again, I am not arguing whether fully automatic firearms would fit the definition of protected arms as I explained above. I don't care whether I may or may not carry them. The capability they provide is of minimal efficacy. When we bog ourselves down in fighting for the minutiae, we lose focus on the real goal of our efforts. Worse, by fighting for automatic firearms, we play into the emotional argument put forth by the antis, scaring the pants off the ignorant public. It is just not the wise way to proceed.

I will continue to fight for the right to carry semi-automatic firearms and to educate the ignorant public as to the difference between semi-auto and auto, because it is the confusion of the two that just might get a new "AWB" put in place.

Now, to continue educating...anyone got Bloomberg's number? His ignorance seems to be more apparent than that of most others.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I think it's 666

:lol:

WalkingWolf · Dec 28, 2012

I must have missed that part about protected arms in the second amendment...

eye95 · Dec 28, 2012

No, you missed me discussing the origin of the concept. The 2A does not say "protected arms," it says "arms." However, it is reasonable to ask what it means by "arms." Does it mean those things that dangle from your shoulders? You would, I think, have a right to keep and bear (or bare) those. What about the things that used to dangle from someone else's shoulders? I'd think you do not have a right to keep and bear those.

So what is meant by the word arms in the 2A? I went into the history of the 2A in another thread in great detail, and don't wish to do so again here. Suffice it to say that my conclusion was that the arms mentioned by the 2A were those that could be kept and borne and were routinely being kept and borne at the time, specifically arms that could be used for civilian purposes (including, but not limited to, hunting and personal protection), but could also be used, in a pinch, as a military weapon, in today's world, those would be rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and knives, to name a few.

Since these arms I am describing are the arms that the 2A is protecting, *I* chose to call them "protected arms." In no way am I saying that the 2A uses that particular phraseology, and I find it disconcerting that you would imply that I have. I have come to expect better from you. Argue the point with me if you will, but please do so in a forthright manner.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Lurchiron · Dec 29, 2012

Vitaeus said:
I actually had a long "discussion" with a fellow on facebook about the bill of rights. He was adamant that the 1st 4th and 5th amendments were able to change to incorporate new technology and methods, but that the second was limited to only covering black powder weapons. I discontinued the discussion soon thereafter, since i was no longer willing to waste my time on such drivel. He also had an issue with the idea that a firearm is a tool, he kept wanting to say no, no, no it is a weapon it is evil, effectively. We as a country have ecome dangerously divorced from the realities underpinning our existence. No one understands that it only takes one side to commit an atrocity, that our meat does not spring forth magically wrapped in the store's freezer and that nothing is worse than misunderstanding equality of opportunity for equality of outcome.

Here Ye, here ye...Let an Amendment be put forth; with great pomp & circumstance, that all anti-gun & non-gun owners hereby be made to reside within 2 miles of the city center. Further more that all gun bearing criminals(including politicians) be made to reside at least 2 miles; but not more than 4 miles from the city center. Lastly, let it be stated; that all law abiding freedom loving gun owners maintain at least a 4 mile perimeter from the city center; and that such a perimeter be defended against escape and/ or trade with the first two groups listed...Henceforth and from now on to be refered to as; The Escape from (insert city name here) Amendment.

By your leave;

Lurch

[video=youtube;0J2QdDbelmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2QdDbelmY[/video]

MKEgal · Dec 29, 2012

BOOMcat12B said:
AR's (those evil black looking guns) were banned in CT and yet they were still used in the spree shooting.

:banghead:
No, the rifle & shotgun were found in the trunk of the car the dead criminal drove to the school.
There's news footage showing the police handling them. (Destroying forensic evidence.)
There were 2 (or 4, depending on who you listen to) pistols with the dead criminal in the school.

hermannr · Dec 29, 2012

BOOMcat12B said:
So I was on FB this morning and saw this as someone's status-

All this talk about gun control or none is kinda annoying... how many more INNOCENT lives have to be lost?? Oh and just so everyone knows, when our founding fathers put the right to have guns they definitely didn't have semi automatic guns!! Sorry, just saying

And this was my response-

Prohibition failed...Folks still got booze. AR's (those evil black looking guns) were banned in CT and yet they were still used in the spree shooting. So tell me how did gun control help? Let em ask you this... Even though the founding fathers did not have Semi autos, what do you think the point of the second amendment was? Why did they make it # 2 in our BOR? That would imply it being rather important considering the BOR was the MAJOR rights out founding fathers thought we should have. So what happens if we lose our right to arm ourselves? Well that would allow the government free rein to do as they please, as no one would have the equipment to stop them. Another way to look at it is by thinking of your children... Would you like to protect them from murders, pedophiles, and criminals in general? Let's say you get robbed at knife point and just happen to move to slowly and the robber slits your throat, then slits your partners throat. Then your children are put into foster care, and they are subjected to a really bad life and grow up maladjusted to the real world, including behavior problems, lack of an ability to concentrate and mental instability due to massive physiological trauma wrought early in their lives. However if you were armed and a robber pulled a knife, you simply pull, aim, fire. Guess what you live, keep your money and your children do not grow up with out parents. Oh and I used a knife just as an example...Guess who does not care about laws? Criminals. Guess who will have a gun no matter what the government says? Criminals. Even if the robber is packing a firearm, with proper situational awareness and thinking you can still eliminate the threat and save your life as well as that of your children. However if uncle Sam takes away our guns then you stand roughly a 0% chance of doing anything to protect your family. Just food for thought.

I am curious what you guys think of my response as well as what you all might of said in reply to the post. I understand I was slightly graphic but sometimes telling someone the cold hard brutal truth of worse case scenarios can be like a cold water wake up. Do you think this is going to far? I fear there will be more posts like this and more arguments coming in the future and I would like a better grasp and idea/plan of action for situations like this.

Thanks for your time and have a good one,.

The founding fathers did not have semi-auto firearms, but then the British did not either. Our founding fathers did have cannon, as did the British...so what does that tell you? The 2A was talking about weapon equality, military V civilian.

Freedom1Man · Dec 30, 2012

hermannr said:
The founding fathers did not have semi-auto firearms, but then the British did not either. Our founding fathers did have cannon, as did the British...so what does that tell you? The 2A was talking about weapon equality, military V civilian.

Privately owned cannons and artillery.

Privately owned warships too. Those were the most high tech weapons around.

Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

Regular Member

Activist Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member