The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 30, 2012, 02:13 PM   #1
jasmith85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 365
Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?

This is a thought that popped into my head while I was reading some other threads on this board. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking this in any way to advocate any type of anti-gun mindset. I'm just truly curious. When the Bill of Rights was first written, firearms were so primitive that an armed person would be lucky to kill two people before someone could get to him and stop him. Now one person can kill 30 people without anyone getting close to him. Do you think that that would have made a difference when the Bill of Rights was written or do you think it would have come out exactly the way it did?

Again, I'm not in any way advocating anti-gun thoughts. I just want to know everyone's opinion on this.
jasmith85 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 02:17 PM   #2
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,302
The founding fathers believed in an armed militia, short answer... Yes IMO
1stmar is online now  
Old December 30, 2012, 02:20 PM   #3
myshoulderissore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
I don't think anyone there had any delusions that inventions would stop, or that guns would get any "less dangerous". The meaning behind it also goes beyond mere gun ownership, it deals with checks and balances within this fine country as well. I would say that yes, it is still very relevant.
myshoulderissore is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 02:27 PM   #4
jmorris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 1,636
What a silly question. No, or they would have built them and given them out to everyone back then to fight the British.

They also didn't have the Internet in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment but it works as well.
jmorris is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 02:49 PM   #5
thedudeabides
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 1,029
That's like asking if free speech applies to TV or the Internet... or that freedom of Religion to any other religions besides Christianity.
thedudeabides is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 02:52 PM   #6
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,851
They had the best weapons they could get at the time in mind; therefore it translates to the best we can obtain today. JMHO (Just My Honest Opinion)
lamarw is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:08 PM   #7
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,767
Murder is already unlawful,with the harshest available penalty.

Apparently a law against murder does not prevent murder.

How many resources go into the war on drugs?Can just about any high school kid obtain just about anything they want?

What is a "drug cartel"?

How restrictive are gun laws in the most dangerous places in America?

How safe are the places with the most gun freedom in USA?

The real issue is in the oath (ironic)"To defend and protect the Constitution of the United States"

The unique idea of individual liberty and a Constitution that limits government.

the 2nd says "Shall not be infringed"

Global solutions are not the answer to individual problems.

Times of high emotion are not the time to make reactionary changes to our founding documents.

Jefferson's comment "The true reason for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is to prevent Tyranny in Government " is a bit more subtle than armed revolution.

The government has an appropriate idea of its relationship with the citizen when the common man can be dangerously armed.

When the government takes the power to register and regulate arms,a continuous and relentless program to disarm us will continue.Appeasement will never work."Oh,we will give up Hi-cap magazines" will never work.they will never stop there.

It will not stop till we are disarmed.Even then,it will not stop.

Throughout history,at least the 20th century,the greatest slaughterer,the greatest mass murderers,have been the very governments of the people being murdered...after they were disarmed.

Just say "No!".Absolutely no compromise.Remain armed and strong.It is the only way to preserve individual liberty.

The real killing begins when only the government is armed.
HiBC is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:10 PM   #8
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,385
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about "guns"?
Salmoneye is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:24 PM   #9
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,678
All are in the spirit ... !!

Quote:
firearms were so primitive that an armed person would be lucky to kill two people before someone could get to him and stop him.
It's all relative and though primative by our perspective, the latest and greatest by theirs. They were certainly aware of firearms evolution as well as weapons. They were not fortune tellers but knew that they wolud continue to evolve. Really doesn't matter as they were and are in the spirit of their use. ....

In the future, someone will be asking the same question about Ray-Guns or whatever comes down the pike. ....


Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:26 PM   #10
myshoulderissore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
Quote:
In the future, someone will be asking the same question about Ray-Guns or whatever comes down the pike.
Now we're talking!
myshoulderissore is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:43 PM   #11
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmith85
Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?
The Founding Fathers did not have a crystal ball to know every detail of the future, but the Constitution was written shortly after "the people" of our new country had bested the mightiest military of their time. The Second Amendment was clearly intended to ensure that "the people" would continue to have the means to fight any threat, foreign or domestic.

The Founding Fathers also did not limit their thinking to individual weapons. Warships were the most sophisticated weapons system of the day and the Constitution explicitly recognizes the private ownership of warships in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (Letters of Marque and Reprisal).
gc70 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:47 PM   #12
olddav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2008
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 487
Our founding fathers were thinking of the best weapons available (state of the art) at the time.
__________________
Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet
olddav is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 03:51 PM   #13
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
The underlying question is. "Did the founding fathers have any idea that arms of any sort, owned by the average person, could be this deadly?".
This argument completely misses the point of us being able to defend our freedoms against government tyranny.

Because of this point alone this argument simply doesn't hold water.
It can however be used to teach about the true story of our nations founding, and foster Patriotism, which IMHO is huge help to us rather than them.
That being said, the arms that they used at the time were in my trained opinion deadlier than what we have now.
The best visual example I can think of is the movie "The Patriot". The battle scenes were pretty graphic, and as far as I can see accurate.
Think about those battle scenes for a minute with this in mind, pretty much anybody with any significant injury stood a high chance of death from sepsis (infection, usually bacterial).
Losing a limb, (sawed off while you were awake and screaming) but surviving through the inevitable infection, was a success.
A bullet wound that killed you quickly could have been viewed as a blessing, these guys were hacking each other to death with edged weapons in bloody battles.
Have you ever seen anyone die from infection that was introduced through severe body trauma? I have seen too many in my career in nursing. Think nearly unending agony.
Trust me you'd rather be shot dead where you stand.
Nevertheless, dead is dead.
I can guarantee you that the Framers of our Constitution attended a long list of funerals of friends, comrades, and loved ones for months after each battle.

The whole argument is Hogwash and is patently insulting to memory of what they all went through. The person who brings this up to you should be treated to a history lesson of they are sincerely looking for answers, and treated with severe contempt if they are using this for political gain.
Consider yourself armed with truth to win this particular fight.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado

Last edited by scrubcedar; December 30, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
scrubcedar is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:05 PM   #14
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,049
I believe they wanted citizens to be able to own the same type of weapons the military of the day had. So, transferring that to today - Yes.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:05 PM   #15
jasmith85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 365
Quote:
The Founding Fathers also did not limit their thinking to individual weapons. Warships were the most sophisticated weapons system of the day and the Constitution explicitly recognizes the private ownership of warships in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (Letters of Marque and Reprisal).
I did not know this and that is awesome.
jasmith85 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:10 PM   #16
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,213
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were inventors. How could they not expect great technological advancement in arms?
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:14 PM   #17
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
That is a favorite red herring of gun control advocates. The intent of the 2A was to have arms to put down tyrants. Remember Lexington and Concord were partially about seizing the privately owned cannons and powder. Jefferson even declared there should be revolutions now and then to keep liberty vigorous.

Up until 1934 there were NO national prohibitions on ANY arms: cannons, machine guns, fighter aircraft, ships of war, grenades, dynamite, etc
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:15 PM   #18
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 538
Quote:
Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?
I don't believe they had the types of arms in mind. What they had in mind was a centralized government becoming oppresive and tyrannical.

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens" http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...of_rights.html

From the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."
-Sydney J. Harris
spanishjames is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:22 PM   #19
J2.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2008
Location: The Real America
Posts: 149
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

~Thomas Jefferson
__________________
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
J2. is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 04:23 PM   #20
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,552
Quote:
I believe they wanted citizens to be able to own the same type of weapons the military of the day had. So, transferring that to today - Yes.
^^This, firmly.
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 05:04 PM   #21
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,302
^^ I believe that was the intent of the question. Since they believed in an armed militia it would be logical to believe they would have supported/intended it to include the most current and effective weapons
1stmar is online now  
Old December 30, 2012, 05:05 PM   #22
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Naw, you're still getting it wrong: the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to put down rebellion, certainly not to enable rebellion.

Anyway, it's a good question. I already stated somewhere that it makes no difference. I doubt they were thinking of weapons so much anyway. They were in very short supply during the revolution, which suggests that the colonists many not have been as well armed as we like to think they were. The colonies themselves had supplies of arms specifically for the purpose of arming the militia. Apparently expecting individuals to arm and equip themselves, even though it was put in the law, was a little too much for some of them.

Using the word patriot is seizing the moral high ground, isn't it? Not everyone wanted to separate themselves from the mother country and after the revolution, people like that, called by the quaint term loyalists, were in for a hard time in some places. That's usually the way it is when there's an armed revolution or civil war.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 05:05 PM   #23
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,642
I don't believe they were thinking about what type of arm the individual owned.
What they were thinking about was that a standing army was both expensive and a threat to the power of the various states.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 05:09 PM   #24
BikeNGun1974
Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2012
Location: Valley Forge, PA
Posts: 80
I think it's a fake argument.

They didn't predict the internet or the cell phone or the TV set, but they believed that citizens should have the right to speak their opinion and publish the news.

They believed the citizens have the right to be armed for the protection of themselves and their community, which means keeping up with the weapons of the potential attackers.
__________________
-Tom
BikeNGun1974 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 05:16 PM   #25
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,213
The 1st Amendment is about the right of the people to petition their government; it's bigger than that, but that's the central ideal. The 2nd Amendment is about making the government listen to those petitions. Try reading them together like a paragraph instead of just #1 and #2 on a list.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15947 seconds with 9 queries