But, what would the founding fathers think...?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, May 14, 2020.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From another topic:

    To each point:

    Surely, the founding fathers could not have anticipated automatic weapons - designed for military use - to be in the hands of citizens.
    Putting aside the use of the term "automatic weapon" aside for the moment...

    Seems to me, the founding fathers would be more than happy for the armed citizenry, from which the militia is drawn, to have in their possession an AR15 or AK47 and would therefore include such weapons under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
    Why should I think otherwise?

    Or the incidences of school shootings, where those arms have been used to mow down children.
    During, before, and after, the late 18th century, such massacres were called "Indian raids"; seem to me the founding fathers would be more than happy for frontiersmen to have in their possession an AR15 or AK47 and would therefore include such weapons under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
    Why should I think otherwise?

    In any event, the court has rendered such argument moot:

    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

    Thanks, and have a great day.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
    Grau likes this.
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The simple fact of the matter is that the founding fathers would not have cared, as such acts of harming others are already illegal. They would likely support the death penalty for such perpetrators, and the execution would be done in a public manner.

    The founding fathers, those who drafted the militia act, specified each member of the militia should possess enough powder, ball, and flint to allow for twenty four shots to be fired. As muskets could be fired as much as three times a minute by a skilled operator, this translates into the founding fathers holding militia members should have enough ammunition at their disposal to allow for eight continuous minutes of uninterrupted firing. That would directly translate to several hundred if not even one thousand rounds of ammunition today.
     
  3. mtlhdtodd

    mtlhdtodd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the founders would think we have lost our collective minds regarding the 2nd and how is parsed and dissected in attempts to make it irrelevant. Throw in the current situation and I think they would be positively disgusted.
     
  4. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Surely, the founding fathers could not have anticipated automatic weapons - designed for military use - to be in the hands of citizens. "

    Thats a bunch of puckle! Besides having no ability to read the decomposed minds of our founding fathers, there was an automatic weapon at the time.

    [​IMG]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
     

Share This Page