I disagree with the OP. I don’t think technological progress overrules the fundamental intent of the text. I think the Second Amendment covers automatic rifles the same way that the First Amendment covers the internet.
I understand “straight government forever!” was what the third amendment originally said, but it was universally viewed as stupid so they scrapped it in favour of a bit about quartering soldiers.
Post deleted
Does it cover the Phalanx automatic weapon? (404 - Page Not Found)| Raytheon
If not, where do you draw the line? If you draw it anywhere, how is the First Amendment/Internet analogy useful?
Isn’t the Phalynx available commercially?
The corollary is “OK, is there a good 2nd-Amendment-compliant reason that I can’t have my own private nuclear arsenal?”
If there is, what nonslippery barriers exist on this here slope to prevent the extension of same argument to automatic and semi-automatic firearms?
If there is not, we have consistency, but an uphill battle before this right is made real.
The 1792 Militia Act essentially required at least small arms parity with regular military. I’m not sure what the plans were for providing ordnance, artillery, et al. though I do know much of the early naval cannon was pooled from privately owned weapons. Presumably the militia could outfit themselves at whatever level they could afford.
“It just wasn’t outlawed.” or “It wasn’t extended constitutional protection.” assumes different things about the direction in which power and authority flows than what was thought “at the time”. Unless the people explicitly grant an authority to the government, it’s reserved to the people (or the states, if the people of a state have granted that authority to the state government). The second amendment is a prohibition on infringement of an existing right. Whether that prohibition extends to infringing a “right to own cannon”, well, several of the founding fathers were “extremist nutcases”.
It’s irrelevant what you think. The perception of need falls upon each person and their given situation. If that closet were in the middle of New Orleans during Katrina, an “assault weap:rolleyes:n” is exactly the type of arms I would have wanted.
And in that situation I wouldn’t have wanted someone in Baton Rouge, Washington D.C., or Tulsa, Oklahoma deciding what I needed to defended myself, my home, and my family from the thugs that were roaming about.
No, you’re not. What you are is someone who doesn’t understand that you simply cannot limit other peoples civil liberties without it eventually coming around in one way or another and affecting your own. This is not a flame, this is something I’d really like you to think about.
If the law doesn’t keep up with the real world, you should change the law not ignore it. If it were up to me, I’d repeal the Second Amendment. But as long as it’s part of the Constitution, we should follow it.
No. In my opinion the framers imagined arms to means something which could be carried on or about the person which would inflict localized damage to others trying to do you harm.
If in 100 years, there is a device the size of a thumbtack which could destroy the entire galaxy, then obviously that wouldn’t be the definition of “arms” as envisioned by the founders…
I think that was already invented circa 1965.
Now that much stuff is no longer printed on a press, does *that *invalidate the 1st Ad?:dubious: Back in 1776 no one could imagine the blogospher, much less the internet. In order to send out a pamphlet, one has to physcally print it and physically distribute it, which made doing so on a mass scale or remaining ananomous extremely difficult.
Thus, it appears clear that the 1st Ad (Free Press sect) should only apply to material printed on a 18th century handpress.:rolleyes:
Can the government own one? If we as a country feel it is acceptable to keep and maintain a fleet of Death Stars, subject to certain constraints (multiple failsafes, detailed handling and safety procedures, frequent inspections, etc.), you’ve provided no reason to disallow individuals from owning them subject to those same constraints, even if it stays extremely illegal to ever use one against another person. Maybe some people are just Death Star enthusiasts.
How does the right to keep nuclear arms overwhelm society? Using nukes would still be illegal. Those checks and balances will still be in place for private owners. We already have thousands of nukes all over this world, and plenty of governments we do not agree with have them, too, with very little in the way of checks and balances. What’s one more guy, especially if he’s properly educated and subject to the same safeguards as the government?
Sure. Most citizens of this country are cool with locking up brown people without a trial and torturing them as well. That doesn’t make them right. But the fact of the matter is, the government is made up of people. The government has nukes. Whatever keeps the people who make up government from going rogue and nuking their target of choice will keep private citizens from doing the same thing.
Anyway, I’m not arguing for nukes; I think they’re in short enough supply (and terrible enough in their effects) that we should aim to get rid of them worldwide, starting with the USA. I’m just arguing that if the government can have them, so should private citizens. In fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything I would agree the government should have sole possession of.
To the best of my knowledge sale of the Phalanx would not be allowed to a private individual, US citizen or otherwise. It is available commerially in the sense that weapon systems are sold to other governments in general. I am certainly not claiming any expertise on that, however, and perhaps I am incorrect.
Certainly, the Founding Fathers didn’t know what directions technological advancement would take, but equally certainly, they did know that technology would advance. Any one of them could have told you that the weaponry of the future would be more powerful, more effective, and more dangerous (at least, to the target) than the weaponry of their time. And so far as I know, none of them provided any standards for how advanced weaponry would have to get before it was no longer subject to Second Amendment protection. The logical conclusion, I think, is that they intended for all weapons yet to be invented to be protected under the Second Amendment.
Now, one can perhaps argue that some modern weapons are so vastly far beyond what the Founders anticipated that, if they had anticipated them, they would not have supported private ownership of weapons. If that’s the case, though, then the proper course of action is to amend the Constitution to reflect such weapons. But as it stands, the Second Amendment still applies.
Whether or not we should allow ownership in principle is a separate debate. I hold that we should not, but the OP is asking whether such technologic advances invalidates the FF’s presumptions. They do. The FF were not sanctifying the right of an individual to retain the power to destroy the earth.
Because the “one more guy” is much more likely to fire it off than a group of guys–particularly our government. And with WMD, ordinary post-event sanctions (fines, imprisonment…) for violation of law is too late. If Dr Evil owns an arsenal of Nukes on his farm outside DC, he has overhwelmingly more influence than is appropriate for individuals, and a great many fewer checks and balances than the Federal Government. The nature of WMDs is such that ownership alone confers disproportionate power.
Utter nonsensical rhetoric, even for the sake of hyperbole.
The consensus position of the US government is not identical to the position of any given individual. Of course a government–perhaps even ours, if we stray too far from our responsibilities as citizens–can “go rogue.” Such an event is nevertheless substantially less likely than any given individual going rogue.
The government is us. Collectively. Our job is to come to a collective consensus. I don’t think there will be a consenus around your position that individuals should be able to own Death Stars and nukes. To the point of the OP, it seems clear that technological advancements have created the need for some clarification of what the Constitution has to say about it.
As an American living in France, I am constantly confronted with the question of guns in the States, and though unarmed, have given some thought to the matter.
First of all, it does seem that less access to (hand)guns makes everyday violence less lethal
In addition, it reduces access of firearms to young, possibly limiting Columbine like violence.
On the other hand, only hardened criminals have weapons, (outside of the few permits delivered to specific cases), and especially since the war in the Balkans, the available weapons are from military stock.
The right to detain arms was created in opposition to the practice of (European) governments of circumscription of the people in time of war/need, arming them, and remunerating them (by contract!) through plunder and rape, 17th 18th and 19th century army troops had often no other pay than the plunder obtained… Their might was evidently reclaimed at the end of conflict (as defined by the same government).
Though this scenario would seem farfetched in today’s US, the constitutional guarantee is essential, and changing that guarantee is quite delicate. The debate is certainly not about which arms are appropriate, but about what happens if the central state takes inappropriate decisions, and by what means the individual citizen can respond.
We have a problem in Edmonton right now - gangs of youths are going around stabbing people for yucks. We’ve had several homicides of this sort in the past month. One of the gang members walks up to someone and asks for a cigarette. After getting in the victims personal space, the others jump in and start stabbing.
Violent crime in practically-disarmed Britain is very high. Home invasion robberies are common.
Canada has had a number of Columbine-type killings. Per capita, I think we’ve had more than the U.S. It’s much harder to get a handgun in Canada, and all guns are registered. It doesn’t seem to have made a difference.
The Puckle Gun was invented in 1718. Benjamin Franklin almost certainly knew of it. A fieldable version was not functional for a hundred or so years, but it was not an unknown concept circa the Revolutionary War.
Surely these two points require context? Very high compared to what? The U.S., in number or proportion? Britain or Canada before a certain series of laws?
I ask because, in the absence of context, your points seem to assume there is no context that is necessary to provide.