I would be interested to hear what people have to say pro or con about one facet of the gun debate, which I would state as follows:
“Resolved: the invention of repeating arms qualitively changed the nature of firearms, in a manner that invalidates the Founding Fathers’ presumptions of guns’ role in society and government.”
Now I am well known on this board as a pro-gun advocate, but I am in the uncomfortable position that I have no positive argument to refute the premise; I can only say that the “technological change” argument logically applies equally well to free speech or the press.
My own position is that the above may or may not be true (which is why I’d like to hear people chime in), but that even if true, it should require a formal amendment to the Constitution to take account of it.
Improvements in the technology of cheap, easily concealed, repeating handguns made the DISADVANTAGES of having widely available arms far greater than the founding fathers could have forseen. While advent of modern warfare, with professionally trained and equipped standing armies made the ADVANTAGES of same for the purposes of forming a militia much less.
Well, it depends on how much of an originalist you are. If you’re truly a believer in textualism interpreted only in the light of original meaning (i.e. the interpretation at the time of enactment, the one that people were thinking about when deciding whether or not to approve the amendment), it’s not a problem. If you truly determine that “repeating firearms are not ‘arms’ within the original meaning of the second amendment,” they shouldn’t be protected by it. This is more-or-less what we do; I don’t think even Scalia would contend that the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional. Then, the interesting question is why breech-loaders don’t fall prey to the same argument.
It would probably take an amendment to allow a factual change to, as you say, “invalidate the Founding Fathers’ presumptions of guns’ role in society and government”–if by that you mean remove the protection of the second amendment.
However, I might take issue with that if just because you don’t need the factual change for the amendment. The second amendment can be modified regardless of whether society possesses M-60s or kentucky rifles.
(To keep the debate narrow, I’m not going to address whether or not this comports with how I think the constitution should be interpreted.)
The 2nd ammendment refers to “arms” not “guns”. I see no reason to believe that the FF did not think that arms included cannons. So no, I don’t think the 2nd ammendment meaning is changed by the invention of repeating arms. I do, however, think it should be replaced by a narrower and more clearly worded ammendment.
If I may, the problem with using “this didn’t exist at the time” arguments is that previous generations of Americans didn’t see the problem with repeating firearms when they were first introduced (1836 for Colt’s revolvers) and this was (barely) within living memory of the ratification of the bill of rights (1791) so if the founding fathers had a problem with repeating firearms, they and their sons had opportunity to fix it at the time.
Despite the fact that they had the opportunity to fix the problems with the technology at the time, they still had no idea of the problem. I suspect that if there had been massacres on the scale of Virginia Tech or Columbine the FF would have provided us with the verbiage that was appropriate. For instance, some limit on magazine capacity might be appropriate.
Before I get dog-piled by the pro-gun types, I offer in my defense the Indian and South African revolutions that were successful without guns at all.
Given that one of the fundamental ideas of the constitution was keeping the individual empowered against the government, the relatively easy procurement of extremely lethal weaponry would seem to be precisely what the second amendment kept in mind.
The argument that modern weapons systems have rendered the small arm irrelevant seems tempered by the situation in Iraq. A well-armed populace presents a formidable opponent to any invading army, which in the eyes of the founding fathers would be a Very Good Thing.
And in fact private citizens did own cannons. Many private merchant ships armed themselves with cannons, and I believe homeowners in coastal areas sometimes did as well. And a cannon at the time could sink the best warship the U.S. Navy could muster. So that would be kind of like allowing people to own Exocet missiles today.
Technological advancement does require us to examine the spirit and the intention of the original wording. It’s easy to show this by taking the possible extreme: Assume that technology advances to the point where hand-carried nuclear (or similarly powerful) weapons are possible. Who wants to argue that the founding fathers intended every individual in the population to have a constitutional right to bear that “arm” uninfringed? Now all of a sudden even anti-gun-control folks start wanting to bring in the “militia” and “security of the state” clauses to temper the right to keep and bear arms.
One can argue all day that the right to bear variations of weapons which fire bullets is protected. Even there it’s still a matter of degree: Does that mean we get to drive around with a Phalanx in our truck beds? Exocets are qualitatively different again, and personal nukes an order of magnitude above that.
So it’s pretty easy to get almost anyone but the most extreme nutcases to agree that the founding fathers didn’t intend “arms” to be unlimitedly broad in interpretation. Even if there were private cannon owners at the time, that doesn’t mean constitutional protection was extended to them. It just means it wasn’t outlawed.
Because there is such a gradual increase in potency from an ordinary rifle to a Phalanx to a nuke, we need a new and clarifying amendment. Good luck. No one wants to touch the constitution. Another thread.
I would argue the opposite. As technology advances and the bad guys (internal or external) have access to better weaponry, then that is all the more reason to allow your free citizens to possess that weaponry to defend themselves, and I would contend that it is my right to protect myself and my family against those bad guys.
These things like free speech, free press, right to bear arms, right to due process were never intended to have the qualifier “only within the bounds of the technology we have now” added. These are grand principles which transcend time and are basic freedoms of men.
I am a pro-gun person, but I don’t think families need assult rifles in their closet. I do believe that people should have the right to own a gun if they wish. So I would say restrict the heavy weapons and let the people own guns. I know in my state where anyone without a criminal or mentally ill record can get a concealed carry license it has worked well. There are over 50,000 citizens with licenses now and some crime has been stopped by them. So far no abuse, but that is bound to happen in the future. I heard on the radio there are more deaths from suicide now than firearms in our country.
So just to be clear, since your post is below mine: If I can afford a few nuclear weapons I should be permitted to have them, uninfringed by law? I am a bad guy, by the way; a citizen in good standing but with bad intentions and not on the Feds’ radar…
It’s worth mentioning that multi-shot firearms were in existence at the time the US Constitution was drafted; Volley Gunshad been around for some time (a couple of centuries, at least), along with the more recent (at the time) Puckle Gun, which can best be described as a sort of Flintlock Machine Gun (although arguably it’s a tripod-mounted flintlock revolver).
Multi-shot longarms were also known at the time, often using superimposed loads or multiple barrels. In fact, pretty much ever since someone had worked out how to jam gunpowder and projectiles down a pipe-barrel and ignite the other end in order to Caufe Greate Aynde Terryble Injurie To Thine Foes, people have been trying to find a way to get multiple shots out of firearms. It just wasn’t until the 19th Century that anyone came up with an effective, practical solution that didn’t involve multiple barrels
In short, I don’t see how the advent of the metallic cartridge and repeating arms could change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as the basic principle had been known for quite some time when the Constitution was drawn up.
I’d further argue that the changes in Firearms Technology that might cause a re-think in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were the Gatling Gun, the Maxim Gun, the Mauser C96 semi-automatic pistol, and the MP-18 Sub-Machine Gun. Even in the 1930s, when private ownership of things like Tommy Guns was severely restricted in some states, they still didn’t get around to changing the Constitution to say something like “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are not machine-guns”, which suggests that even though “select fire” longarms were a fairly logical next step, it still wasn’t seen as necessary to spell out that they “didn’t count” for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, suggesting that it was still felt they were OK for general ownership.
The problem is that, until the 1950s or so, the arms the military used were fundamentally the same ones that the citizenry used for hunting or target shooting. It wasn’t until the advent of select-fire weapons being mass-issued in the late 1950s and early 1960s that they became “different” enough to lead to people getting worked up about “Assault Rifles” and things like that. And that’s without getting into the Field Gun/Ordnance arguments raised so excellently by Sam Stone.
Frankly, I’ll be interested to see how it all works out once someone invents a Laser Gun or a Plasma Rifle, to be honest…
Probably the second amendment could handle to be rewritten as something along the lines of:
“The private citizen shall be allowed to maintain personal weaponry of maximum strength as to allow the discouragement of the government abandoning its mandate to preserve the rights of the people, to the extent that a small band could not reasonably cause a statistically significant difference in the national murder rate.”
“Small band” and “statistically significant” would of course need to be defined more strictly.
So as a pro gun person you don’t feel that the very assault rifles you mention were the weaponry spelled out by the Second? As a fellow pro gun type, I am baffled by your line of logic of which I see all too common. You trust people to carry concealed but not to own intermediate sized rifles? Handguns are used in far more crimes than any assault rifles.
Perhaps it is closer to the OP to ask what you consider “heavy” weapons? If it is the caliber of the rounds that a gun fires, then, by your logic, hunting rifles must also be an issue as they are far more powerful than most assault type rifles. If it is how fast a semi auto can shoot, by your logic, then you will need to be against all semi auto guns, not just the military look a likes.
If you are against true assault rifles, the full auto type, then I would direct you to your own state where they are as legal as your concealed carry and more likely far less of a threat to the common man.
Regarding the OP, I think that it is logic that like this that should be discussed as it clouds the issue. In my opinion, the evolution of firearms does not negate the true nature of the Second which was to provide a threat against a future state tyrannical government. As government supplied armies rose in arms technology, that same technology was applied to the civilians, to whom the Second speaks directly to.
The whole “2nd amendment” thing seems a little paranoid, to me. Wouldn’t ensuring your government was straight enough to never even consider pointing its military’s weapons at its people, be preferable to ensuring you have the right to fight back, if they turn rogue?
Possibly, but I think the OP is trying to confine the debate to “ONE SPECIFIC aspect.” (More or less this: Do technologic advances invalidate founding fathers’ assumptions?)
I’m not jtgain, but I agree with this. The restrictions should be a lot higher (licensing, education, taxes), with plenty of oversight, etc., but it shouldn’t be entirely out of the question for a sufficiently dedicated wealthy person to own a nuclear weapon. I mean, we let the government own them, and it’s just a collection of (fallible) people with a lot of money and information at their hands. I don’t see why they should be the sole bearer of nuclear weapons.
As far as I’m concerned, the government has just as much chance at having ‘bad intentions’ as any private citizen. As long as we all do our best to impede those bad intentions, I’m cool with it.
Of course, I’m with those who say technological advance doesn’t invalidate our fundamental rights. Does the internet invalidate free speech? Do corporate megachurches invalidate freedom of religion? Do gigantic modern gatherings like Woodstock or the Million Man March invalidate freedom of assembly?
Let’s project out a bit more, then…weaponry is developed which can destroy the Earth. May your citizen own the Death Star privately?
It is not correct that our government as it is currently constructed has just as much chance of having “bad intentions” as a single individual, and that argument as a route to extend nuclear arm ownership to individuals is specious. As framed in the constitution, our government, with its checks and balances is much more likely to represent the common will of the people than any given individual. The way we “all do our best to impede those bad intentions” is precisely by forming the government so that an individual’s “rights” do not overwhelm society at large.
In the discussion at hand, then, the question is whether the Constitution could be construed to protect the right of an individual citizen to own an “arm” that is a weapon of mass destruction. Such an inference from the text is unreasonable. The thing that has made the inference possible at all is the technological advance of weaponry from small arms with limited destructive capability to arms which can produce widespread destruction. The founders of the country clearly meant to allow the Constitution to be a living document, malleable to the times. We have, instead, embraced a paradigm of interpreting it as if every line relevant to the time is relevant to today. Technologic advance has rendered this approach inadequate for interpretations of the Second Amendment. You cannot “interpret” a sentence which was written unaware of the future, particularly so since those who framed the Constitution deliberately put in place a mechanism to change it should circumstances or collective agreement about what is appropriate change.
And while your own opinion may diverge, I do not think most citizens in this country want private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, limited only by some sort of safeguard licensure process.