(Not being fascetious here) was there any discussion of the limits, i.e. did the founding fathers suggest the “right to bear arms” did not include cannon? While they may have been very much in favour of an armed citizenry as a check on tyranny - the medieval history of England (which they must have known) was all about the king trying to limit the growth of barons’ private armies. Allowing a rich powerful person to amass his own armoury of cannons, mortars, etc. was certainly a step in the wrong direction in assuring the continuation of the Republic.
I’m not sure but it appears you are unaware that you can buy cannons.
Get a nice new shiny one from Steen Cannons or go retro at The Antique Cannon SuperStore.
The founders were against disarming people.
Were the founders always right, about all things?
No, this is not a fact. There were several reasons Jack Miller did not appear in court but being broke doesn’t appear to be on the list.
- Defendants don’t get to testify before the Supreme Court. So Miller wouldn’t have had anything to say even if he had been there in the audience.
- Miller was a bank robber not a soldier. He didn’t have any special knowledge of what weapons the army used.
- Miller was dead.
Oh wait … maybe I should have mentioned that last one first.
I assume that is because these are as effectiv as muskets as real offensive weapons nowadays
But anyone trying to avoid a tyranny or coup should realize one fo the important criteria is to not allow anyone to build their own private army - brownshirts, KKK, Fenians, wobblies, whatever. Many of the old castles of England are ruins because the non-government ones were destroyed by the crown to prevent them being used by uppity barons. Similarly, one of the kings forbad the barons from amassing private armies with their won uniforms. Allowing unlimited arming is just a short step to allowing private armies. Limiting access to “heavy weapons” would limit the the extent to which a private army could compete with the military, but would not inhibit private citizens who typically would not acquire such weapons anyway.
Do I look stupid enough to fall into that kind of cheap trap?
There were other complicating factors involved but the fact that they had no money was major. If it’s not on your list, I suggest that your source may be inaccurate and you should try reading several dozen other lists.
-
C’mon, cut the crap. The case would have been presented if they had been able to get there. Technical nitpicking about who would have actually mouthed the words is … not appropriate for GQ.
-
I suggest that any lawyer qualified to practice before the Supreme Court would have looked into whether or not the military used such weapons since that is the crime with which his clients were charged.
-
Miller died before the decision was read, not before the testimony.
So it’s possible they were wrong about unlimited arms for all?
My point is that you can claim anything you want about what might have hypothetically happened if Miller had appeared in court. The court might have decided the ban on short-barreled guns was unconstitutional. Or they might have decided the Second Amendment only protects gun use by on-duty members of a recognized militia.
You can believe that if the court had known short-barreled weapons were issued in World War I, it would have changed its decision. Somebody else can believe that if the court had known Miller had died in a gun fight, they might have extended Congressional power to cover all firearms. But we have to look at what the court actually said and the reasons it actually gave.
Sure, and does this mean that if it’s not printed on a 17th century “press” the 1st Ad does’t apply?:dubious:
These points are pertinent in over-eager arguments, or at least defense-in-depth ones, where supporters of the Second amendment will attack the First (bloody games, films).
I do like DrDeth’s comeback.
Yes. In movies actors do use real flamethrowers in flamethrower scenes. Go Ripley!
In my opinion, you have to look at the functional equivalent of what the terms meant when the text was written. Television news is the functional equivalent of what the printed press was in 1791 so freedom of the press covers television. And a modern rifle or handgun is the functional equivalent of what a musket was in 1791 so the right to bear arms covers rifles and handguns.
Certainly in the 18th century an “armed” militia could easily have included members armed with swords and pikes. Many cavalry troops well-into the 19th century (and a bit into the 20th) may have been armed with sabers and lances, not fire-arms.
There’s arms and there’s fire-arms.
AND -
I don’t have the link handy but if you search the web for 2nd amendment, militia and slavery, you should find an interesting recent article (or more) positing the basis for the 2nd amendment on southern slave patrols, known as militias.