you realize, of course, that the design of nuclear warheads is still classified information, right? I mean, if you’re going to toss out a pithy reply at least try to say something not so absurd.
PROTIP: the military of the time fought with muskets too. So, as long as you’re advocating that the US Armed Forces and US National Guard also go back to using muskets, I’d be happy to agree with you.
But you weren’t advocating that.
Here’s a handy definition of the militia: Document not Found
Huh. You’d think a question in General Questions would get an actual response instead of immediately devolving into a gun control debate. Anyway, here goes:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 is the law that limited civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons and other destructive devices. This was in response to the proliferation of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals as firearms technology improved. This is the law that specifies why you cannot own a sawn-off shotgun, or a nuclear bomb, or any other excessively destructive thing. While it is still possible to purchase some of these weapons, they are extremely expensive and very heavily regulated. This is why modern Americans interpret “arms” as limited purely to semiautomatics.
panache45 is using a Straw Man argument to villify gun supporters. No rational person, even the NRA, supports repealing the NFA laws. The NRA’s position is that existing gun laws should be better enforced, rather than see new categories of weapons outlawed.
They also fought with rifles, which were being introduced at the time as the coming thing. And things like swords and pikes and longbows weren’t so far outdated that they weren’t at least considered as possible battle weapons. So the Founding Fathers would have had a broader definition of military arms than just muskets.
But the good news? The law doesn’t prohibit flamethrowers so you can still legally buy those.
United States v. Miller
The super-condensed version: Due to emotional reaction to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre the government passed a law saying that owners of machine guns and sawed off shotguns and rifles had to pay a $200 tax on each weapon (a shotgun could be bought for $10 at that time).
Two guys were arrested for having a short shotgun. The judge let them go, saying the law was unconstitutional. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the military does not use short barreled weapons (not true, of course.). The defendants had no money for a lawyer and did not appear in court, so the government won the appeal by default without the opposing sides argument being heard.
A good video on the 2nd Amendment: 2a Today for The USA
It’s worth pointing out that the modern incarnation of the NFA includes several other requirements in addition to the $200 tax.
And yet, many places in this country have sword bans, and they never seem to end up going before the Supreme Court.
No, but they did have the Girandoni Air Rifle. While not fully automatic it was easily capable of 20 shots a minute, far exceeding the capabilities of the standard muzzle loader.
The founding fathers were fully cognizant of the fact that weapons would continue to be improved along with every other technology.
And as the OP specifically mentioned arms not not well regulated or militia, I’ll just point out that the meanings of those terms have evolved as well and no longer have the same definitions as when they were penned in 1791.
Huh. I’ve come very close to buying a modern version of that. I’m really impressed that they could do that with the tech at the time. And it’s .45 cal.
Here is a modern version in .177 cal. -
I doubt an NRA spokesman would, in fact, discuss that, any more than in a hypothetical as done here.
You’d think most people would know better.
The Founding Fathers were aware of the Girandoni Air Rifle and had planned to specifically mention it as one of the arms that were protected by the Second Amendment.
But then George Washington forbid it. He told them “You’ll shoot your eye out.”
So an emotional reaction to a horrible widely publicized event prompted calls for revision of existing gun regulations. Sounds familiar. And the revisions were accomplished through imposing regulations and taxes, rather than restrictions per se, thus avoiding the prospect of the outright curtailing of “rights”. Sounds clever.
I read that wiki article, but the reasoning used there seemed circular with reference to both of those points.
On the one hand, it is asserted that the first part of the second amendment, the “prefatory clause” about maintaining a malitia, is only a nonexclusive example of why citizens need guns (ie self defence is another reason, just one not chosen as the example). Yet then the ruling uses that one nonexclusive example as the specifier of what type of guns citizens can own. If maintaining a militia is just one example, why should citizens be limited to owning just the type of guns used by militias?
The second point is also circular, as in not allowing citizens to own certain weapons, those weapons become “unusual” and vice versa. Or at the very least, if the weapons cannot be owned, they have very little chance of becoming “usual”.
Super-condensing again: When the government attorneys presented their appeal before the Supreme Court, they argued from the point of view that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow people to own the same types of arms that might be used by infantrymen. They outright lied and said that soldiers do not use short-barreled guns.
Since the defendants were not present, their testimony was not heard. The court decided “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length …” If the defendants had had the money to get to the courtroom and provide the evidence that soldiers do use such weapons, the case would almost certainly have been decided differently.
They’ve gone before lower courts. Be patient.
Well, that’s a possibility. Another possibility is the defendants realized they didn’t have a case worth making.
A larger portion of the decision says: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Their reasoning seems to be it was not enough to show that any weapon with a short barrel has ever been used by the military. The Court seems to imply that a weapon would have to be generally and currently necessary to a militia unit to be covered. If a long-barreled weapon could do the same job as a short-barreled weapon from a military standpoint, then there was no constitutional protection on short-barrels.
Interestingly, if this was the intent of the decision, then you could probably make an argument that the NFA’s ban on machine guns was unconstitutional.
It is a fact that the defendants were broke and could not travel to the courthouse. It is a fact that the American military issued tens of thousands of short barreled shotguns to troops in WWI. It is a fact that the use of those weapons by the military was not presented in court.
If the defense had presented their case, the court’s decision would not have stated “In the absence of any evidence …”