The Third is inoperable and the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth are all crime-related amendments. The only other one in the Bill of Rights that has specific applicability is the Fourth, so he could just as easily have said that, but the First has many more provisions in it. With that in kind, it is ripe for a compromise. If you want us to give up a Constitutional right, which would you be willing to surrender? Speech, religion, assembly, petition or press- take your pick.
(points already been made by Airman)
-XT
The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the 2nd applies to handguns. As far as to the military use of handguns, circa 17XX…
Well, first, I think we can all agree that gonzomax has no idea what he’s talking about, and knows nothing about guns. Seriously, what the heck, man. The only difference between a dueling pistol and a military (typical) pistol of the era is refinement and accuracy. A dueling pistol is generally much higher quality. Again. Look at the picture of George Washington’s personal sidearm. Notice the resemblance to the dueling pistol.
Second, a pistol has military use in several ways. This is because it can be drawn on a horse or other confined or awkward space. Before 1850, either the pistol needed multiple barrels, or multiple pistols could be carried. Thus, the term, ‘a brace of pistols’. A musket, especially of the era, has quite a long barrel. As in, five feet long. During, say, a boarding action at sea, or as cavalry, a musket is a completely inappropriate weapon.
As guns are superior to swords, it is much reccomended that you arm your riders with pistols, so they can gallop in, flank the enemy, fire into his side, and gallop away again.
If you are boarding an enemy vessel, it is much reccomended that you shoot people rather than engage them in some duel. Muskets can get trapped on many things on a boat.
http://www.damonmills.com/ps_13.htm
Just for the heck of it, see here, a French supplied Cavalry pistol of a model used by the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.
Notice slightly further down the 1800s Naval pistol.
If your point is ,that there were a lot of hand guns around during the birth of our country, you would be mistaken. Note a 1800 pistol is decades after the 2nd amendment.
Washington was impressed by the citizen who augmented his army. They were helpful and he appreciated them. That is why the militia is referred to in the 2nd. amendment. They were armed with private weapons and shot at the Britts from cover. They did not confront them with dueling pistols. Pistols were not significant weapons in the revolution. The militia reference is clear. The Brits confiscated the muskets of the Americans when they could. The genesis and point of the 2nd is obvious unless you want to twist it into a handgun bill. It is not.
Do you understand these words, gonzomax? Pistols existed during the Revolutionary War. And were used by the army. I have given you two types of military use of pistols, during that period. One by the army, and one by the navy.
The Constitution was signed 1789. This is not ‘decades’ before 1800. This is after 1777.
Further, you have just made it clear that you are unaware of how armies were formed during that period of time. There was no standing army. The standing army was formed out of existing militias.
The Hearts of Oak was a Militia company formed by the State of New York, and the ancestor of the modern 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery, as an example.
Seriously, read your darn history before telling untruths in Great Debates. And if I’ve told an untruth, call me on it.
The people in America at that time had a hardscrabble existence. Rifles and muskets were for hunting and feeding the family. There were a few gun smiths and blacksmiths. They were not busy making guns. That is a luxury the people could not afford. They made muskets and later rifles. The pistols that existed were the property of the rich , They were insignificant in the Revolution.
Hamilton used British Dueling pistols.
gonzomax,
You obviously haven’t any idea what you are talking about. If you want to continue pushing that particular line, it’s well past the point where you should have provided a cite. Put up or shut up.
What’s your point, gonzomax? Are you suggesting that the Model 1777 French Cavalry Pistol was not supplied in considerable numbers to the Continental Army?
Why do you believe this?
What, my friend, is the major technical difference between the dueling pistol Hamilton used and said M1777?
If only 3 pistols were carried by anyone during the American Revolution and none were fired, would it mean they were not covered by the Second Amendment?
What is your argument here?
Pulling this out of your ass, aren’t you? Do you have a cite that A) Guns were scarce in pre-Revolutionary America, B) That handguns were used or owned solely by the rich, C) That their military use was insignificant during or before the Revolution…?
And you might want to explain why this would be important even if you weren’t making it up. Why would a pistols military use or lack there of or who or who didn’t own one be of any importance to the question? Do you think the folks who drafted the 2nd meant only rifles and muskets and didn’t consider hand guns as part of the term arms?? If so, what is your evidence showing this was the case?
-XT
I can’t wait for someone to drop Bellesiles into this.
While we’re waiting for evidence that general military service pistols did not exist during the Revolutionary War, let me pose a question:
Why do foreigners give a damn what we in America do with our guns?
I mean, with folks in Canada, I can understand; we have a ~3,000 mile common border, and could conceivably be a source of illicit arms to Canadian criminal elements via smuggling and such.
But England? France? Japan?
Why does it matter a whit to any country that doesn’t have a border with us what we do, domestically, with firearms?
They have to know better by now. The last time someone brought up Bellesiles as evidence it didn’t go so well.
There is a practice known as “The Big Lie,” wherein a blatant untruth, repeated ad nauseum, is eventually taken to be “The Truth.”
Kinda like how certain anti-gunners contended that us pro-gunners were delusional and that the 2nd never conferred protection status to individuals WRT firearms, and that it was all a fabrication of Gun Nuts/The NRA/Sam Colt.
Even in the face of historical evidence to the contrary, they parsed and twisted words into entirely new meaning (butchering English syntax to do so, and this, too, was pointed out to them, to no avail) to support their contention that the 2nd. Ad. applied only to state’s militias, and not individuals, all based upon one incomplete and narrowly worded SC ruling in 1939.
I’m wondering if gonzo’s obstinancy regarding handguns is the newest tactic of The Brady Bunch, now that they have 1600 Penn. Ave and both Houses of Congress, to again begin slipping the salami up the ass of American gun owners.
In fact, there weren’t many pistols in America before the French and Indian war, because they were most useful during wars, rather than during peace. War spurred their manufacture and import.
Calvary especially used pistols a lot. They weren’t just used for dueling or by only the rich. They were used quite a bit for personal protection as well as in warfare through US history (well, until recently) and their usefulness on the battlefield only really started to diminish in modern times. Contrary to gonzo’s ‘facts’.
Even if this wasn’t the case I’m having a hard time seeing how any of this justifies banning them as a class regardless. Maybe gonzo would be so good as to explain that and provide a drive by link or two to, um, illustrate his point? How about it gonzo?
-XT
You’re looking at this as a compromise in which you’re giving up the right to have handguns (without a CCW permit, mind you. I’d be fine with those in our example) equals the right to free speech, religion, assembly, press, or petition. Banning handguns doesn’t equal those other ones. You’re not banning some religion, speech, assembly, petition, or press.
Now, I understand. It’s your right. You’re trying to make the point that if I’m willing to give up one of your (really, our) rights, then I should give up one of mine (again, really ours). Looking at the situation like that is the most harmful because then if we compromise, we only end up with half the rights we currently have.
Now, yes. Heller was decided. Hooray. That obviously hasn’t dented the gun debate. Now let’s get some real compromise that we can deal with. I’d like to ban handguns (excepting those with a CCW permit). I’m even open to grandfathering the existing ones in. Hell, I’ve been cool with every compromise brought before me.
If you start from the belief that you’ve given up too much and that the Heller decision is ironclad and you can’t reason with the other side, then we all lose. It’s obvious that this decision didn’t leave anyone happy. So let’s at least try to get some kind of decent compromise that we can all live with.
Can’t we all just get along?
Really? Sez who? You? You aren’t exactly an unbiased source though. The thing is, just because it’s not important to YOU doesn’t mean that others don’t see it that way. Myself I equate the right to bear arms with freedom of religion, speech, assembly and all the rest. And banning handguns is the equivalent of, say, banning porn. It’s a step down the slippery slope of banning something that some group finds offensive or improper.
Are you cool with banning porn? Are you willing to compromise the 1st that much to get this offensive and useless class of literature off the streets? Why or why not?
I’m sorry, but I really don’t think you DO understand. Again, it’s not important to you, so you see it by that perspective. Think of it in terms of something you DO care about…then think about if I want to start taking pieces out of that something in the name of ‘compromise’. If you feel strongly about free speech then think of it in the terms I made earlier about porn…and think if you are willing to compromise by banning this class of speech.
How about if we compromise by instead of banning handguns we allow people to once again purchase and own automatic weapons? How about a compromise along those lines?
I can live with how things are now, thanks. Personally I think that if your side keeps pushing on this issue that it’s all for the good…especially the sneaking and cowardly way they have tried to push this issue. I see no reason or need to such a drastic ‘compromise’ on this. I think it’s completely disingenuous for you to continue to push for it actually. An honest person debating in good faith would have listened pages ago to the arguments showing that the pro-gun side HAS compromised quite a bit already…while the anti-gun side has done nothing but continue to try and erode the 2nd at every turn.
Maybe one day your side will again get some traction on this issue and they will actually manage to gut the 2nd and ban all hand guns…and then move on to banning everything else they can. But today, right now, I’m not seeing any need or reason to compromise a bit on this.
Sure…take the gains your side has made already (registration, control, banning or heavy restrictions on military grade weapons, etc) and be content with it. Stop trying for more more MORE!
-XT
The point about handguns is that they are the single easiest weapon to use. By easiest, I mean they require the least effort to aim and fire. They can be used at the closest range, and can be stored in the smallest object.
This makes them ideal for personal self-defense for the less able members of society.
This is precisely why the saying is, “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” Because an 80 year old lady with a Colt revolver is able to stand face to face with a 23 year old bodybuilder and stand a chance, if he wants to mug, rape, or kill her.
It is not trivial, but it is relatively easy to step inside the reach of a barrel of a longarm. Further, they are harder to move in close quarters, and more apt to be hung up. Finally, they are much more difficult to keep at hand.
Giving up the right to a pistol comes close to banning speech critical of the government, in relative severity. At least, in my opinion.
Why do you want to ban pistols?
I dunno. Why can’t we?
That’s the thing. I’ve said many times that personally I don’t like guns, but I don’t think that should overrule the fact that many people like them and there’s the Second Amendment.
I wouldn’t equate the Second with the First. Not by a long shot. The First covers a lot of things that make this country what it is. The Second is another added bonus in there. It’s an interesting added bonus, but after the Revolution, I understand why it’s there.
Equating this to something I care about isn’t the debate. Ideally, this Heller decision would have finished the debate, or at least put a serious dent into it. It didn’t. I think that serious work needs to be done to come to some kind of middle ground in order to get this situation as close to solved as we can get it and then move on to other issues.
Also, I said I’d be cool with people having automatic rifles, so long as we ban handguns. Every single thing that the pro-gun side has wanted, I’ve accepted. You may notice that after some posters ask for clarification and a concession, they haven’t really been in to contribute to the debate again afterwards. Perhaps they’re satisfied with the resolution that’s been carved out.
Cowardly my ass. Don’t equate me with what “my side” has done. I think I’ve been pretty upfront with every single question asked of me. Seeing as how I’m not an honest person not debating in good faith, crossing your arms and saying that there is no middle ground when some posters have already seemed to have expressed a middle ground on the issue is disingenuous. I’ve even answered every single hypothetical question asked of me in this thread as well. I don’t see tossing away half our rights in some kind of special compromise just for weapons to be the answer, either. If you can demonstrate that giving away one of the other tenets of the Bill of Rights is equivalent, then we’ve got something.
Again, you can’t legislate morality, which is why porn laws didn’t get any traction, why Prohibition didn’t get any traction, and why the War on Drugs is doomed to failure.
The gains that “my side” has made on banning military-grade weapons is pretty common sense if you ask me. One could draw a parallel between military-grade weaponry in the hands of the citizens and street legal cars.
Another question to satisfy my curiosity: if there were zero crime, would people still want weapons to protect themselves? What if it were demonstrated that there’s less crime now than in the past, would there be less of a need for guns? How would that fit with the actual civilian consumption of weapons rising or falling? I suppose it’s my stream of consciousness way of asking if there’s some kind of relation between the amount of violent crimes committed and the sales of guns.
ETA: Anyone got access to JSTOR? Thiscould be an interesting read.