Only if there is someone who wants to contend by implication that semi automatic weapons were common place during the revolution and therefore an intrinsic part of the founders formulation of the 2nd Otherwise i contend that these weapons were not common place for the same reason they were not part of considerations leading to the 2nd ammendment
I'm really confused as to why it matters, as the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding
That is your opinion But courts do not agree Which is why machine guns and rpgs are not your right. Though you are encouraged to test our respective views by openly carrying such weapons Wheather or not you think founders intent is relavent There have been repeated discussions of that topic... and i was responding to those who disqualify consideration of founders intent because of the contemporaneous existence of multi round guns when the 2nd was written.
What I posted came from the SCotUS, in 2008. Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html When did the court rule this?
One thing to understand, I think, is that "The Government" and "The Military" are not the same entity. Just because "The Government" orders the military to go forth and confiscate all the guns and kill or capture those who do not comply, does not mean that the military will do it. Quite the contrary, in my opinion. The fact remains: Every member of the military has taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, in my experience, they all take that oath very seriously. If they adhere to their oath, then the military will be fighting on the side of those who are defending the Constitution, not those who are attacking it. But, just to entertain the premise, lets look at some numbers. A VERY conservative estimate of individual gun owners is 100 million. (I base this on a quick google, where I found an NBC source saying 1 in 3.) Lets say half of them would willingly just hand over their guns if the government asked them to. That leaves 50 million. Lets say half of those are unwilling, or unable to take up arms against this tyranny. That leaves a resistance force of 25 million. According to WIKI, the total active and reserve military is about 2.25 million, worldwide. So, even if every one abandoned his oath and fought on the side of tyranny, they'll be overrun. But not all of them are going to take up arms against their own countrymen, and half of them are not even in the country to be able to. So, half of those are actually in the US for the party. 1.125 million. Perhaps half of those would just follow orders to kill their countrymen. That leaves 562,000 troops with tanks and drones against 25 million citizens with small arms. They would literally have nothing left at the end of such a conflict, but the government would not prevail.
Gun control is a matter of cost-benefit analysis. The costs associated with eliminating all guns would be high and exceed the benefits. We see the same in criminology. Even if it was realistic, there is no notion that we should strive for zero crime. There is instead a notion of optimal crime, where costs and benefits are equated. Are guns relevant to fighting the terrors of government dictatorship? Nope. Fertiliser would be more relevant in an asymmetric conflict.
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is not "the court" Please try again. Good to see you have up on the "that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment" nonsense.
Sorry I am not a legal expert to quibble with you on legal issues I note as a matter of fact that machine guns and rpgs are essentially legally regulated to the point of unavailability Newsweek has read the long Scalia ruling and says The late justice also more generally offered the belief that, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today. The opinion also upheld bans on selling M-16 rifles or sawed-off shotguns or machine guns. http://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-antonion-scalia-congress-gun-heller-supreme-court-heller-474232 Further. The Scalia quote you provided was his OPINION and does not constitute law. The legal finding was simply to reject the constitutionality of dc gun laws
And yet, you;re going to try to argue legal rulings. Perhaps you ought to back away from what you admit you do not understand.
How do you think Timothy Murphy was able to fire multiple shots so quickly? His rifle was known to be a traditional flintlock with an over/under configuration; fire one shot and rotate the bottom barrel to the top, fire your second shot. While rifles such as the Kalthoff or Nock Valley repeaters were around, they were very rare (and prohibitively expensive) but repeating rifles were known as a functioning technology at the time.
Perhaps I mis understood and were making the point that a single repeating rifle by itself had a significant impact on the battle. Now it seems like a historical curiosity But then that makes my point that the founders would not have anticipated inexpensive semi auto weapons with large capacities. And for that reason one can not argue that this eventuality was part of the intention of the 2nd.... regardless of what the courts have ruled as far as the legal meaning of the 2nd For example, we could argue that freedom of speech also applies to the Internet even though this was not contemplated by the founders. But you cannot argue that freedom of speech applies to the Internet BECAUSE the founders explicitly considered the Internet when writing the constitution
They were very much aware of the Belton repeating flintlock. They were not aware of digital communications and data storage. Are you suggesting that cell phone communication and personal PC hard drives are not protected by the 12st and 4th Amendments?
Same can then be said for the 4th Amendment and your cell phone. This issue has been settled -- your point of view is moot.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong in your rationalization. The Founders ALWAYS believed in securing the right of the individual citizen to be armed in a manner equivalent to the average foot soldier. They also were forward thinking men who knew that repeating arms existed and that weapon technology would continue to evolve. To argue that the Founders could not have imagined weapon technology would evolve, and that thus the 2nd can be dismissed as obsolete, is ludicrous in the face of thinking one's First Amendment right covers writing on a computer and then posting on the Internet. At least repeating firearms existed in their day. It's nothing but an excuse to ignore the Constitution because it's inconvenient, and an intellectually dishonest excuse at that.
It amazes me how many times we have to repeat ourselves on things like this -- it's almost as if they deliberately do not pay attention.
No You can argue that the constitution applies to new things You cannot argue that it applies BECAUSE they explicitly considered things like the internet which they did not CONSIDER. nor can you argue that they considered things like suitcase nuclear weapons, or rpg, or m-16, or Thompson sub machine guns, or biological weapons, And, I think it is clear that courts have treated such weapons I. A different manner than what the founders as they pronounced a right to bear arms But I have a question about your opinion Do you agree that suitcase nukes are legally indistinguishable from a revolver in terms of legal right to carry And therefore that all the same regulations as apply to that weapon can also be applied to a revolver?
This is conjecture There was no person that could then, or can now fully comprehend the implications of the development of future technology I have separately addressed this
