When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[multivita-man]

Not according SCOTUS.

Not the entire SCOTUS; it was a 5-4 decision, and the majority got it wrong. They made up their own history of the 2nd Amendment.

Having said that how would you propose to take our guns?

I never said I necessarily wanted anyone to take away your guns - at least not all of them.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Not the entire SCOTUS; it was a 5-4 decision, and the majority got it wrong. They made up their own history of the 2nd Amendment.



I never said I necessarily wanted anyone to take away your guns - at least not all of them.

Why is it SCOTUS is only "right" when they rule in your favor? Regardless, SCOTUS says we get to keep our guns.

 

[multivita-man]

Why is it SCOTUS is only "right" when they rule in your favor?

They're not right when they rule in my favor; they're wrong when they concluded that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect private household ownership of firearms as though it were a widely-recognized unalienable right.

Regardless, SCOTUS says we get to keep our guns.

That they indeed do say, but I am hoping that at some point, popular opinion will shift and that there will be more attention on just how many bad decisions like this the Court has rendered the last 10-20 years.

 

[whitehall]

Yeah, maybe we could say the same thing about the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment has been upheld in a dozen Supreme Court decisions and a lame reference to the Revolution is just another exercise in B.S.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of the bed wetter's every respond to this... every amendment with the term "the people" listed as the benefactors of the right means an individual right except the 2nd?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

None of the bed wetter's every respond to this... every amendment with the term "the people" listed as the benefactors of the right means an individual right except the 2nd?

I know that I read, years ago, of a Supreme Court ruling, the point of which was to explicitly state that everywhere that the term “the people” appears in the Bill of Rights, that it has the same meaning; referring to each individual American citizen; and never to any collective.

More recent efforts to Google it up have come up dry.

 

[woodwork201]

The 10th isn't about rights at all. It's about limitations on the federal government. If it were enforced, our country would be in a lot better situation that it is now.

Wasn't it John Adams who said that there was no need for an amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms because nothing in the Constitution could be construed to give the Government the power to take our arms. The far more important part of that quote is not about the taking or not taking of arms - the greatest message there is that the Founders intended that Government could not do a thing that was not clearly authorized for them to do in the Constitution.

The Constitution was not exactly about limiting Government, it was about creating a government that had only those very few enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was, in fact, about limiting them, though.

It turns out that both the Federalists and the Anti-federalists were right about the Bill of Rights. From the Anti-federalists side, imagine how few rights we would have today had we not gotten the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, the Federalists were right because the only rights we seem to have, according to Government, are those in the Bill of Rights. Government all the way to the Supreme Court constantly allow things that are not authorized in the Constitution on the argument that the Constitution does not prevent them from doing the thing, just exactly the opposite of what John Adams told us was the intent and expectation.

 

[woodwork201]

Not every person had firearms in those days, just like they don't now. The people who wrote and ratified the amendment did so because they wanted each state to have an effective militia. In fact, Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony that was founded on pacifism. Frontiersmen in Western PA complained about the fact that there was no militia to defend them against things like Indian raids. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that people in each state would be able to form a militia for the defense of a free state (as the amendment says). But they wanted the militia to be well-regulated. It had fuck all to do with arming every jackass who wanted to fire a gun or a canon.

No, not every single person but most men aged 18 and above did because in many colonies that was the law. You were, in some colonies before the revolution, required to own a gun and to bring it with you to public meetings and such. Of course as the Revolution era approached, the King's men started to limit arms because, as tyrants always do, they began to fear the people because they knew the people had good reason to be angry with the Government.

 

[woodwork201]

I know that I read, years ago, of a Supreme Court ruling, the point of which was to explicitly state that everywhere that the term “the people” appears in the Bill of Rights, that it has the same meaning; referring to each individual American citizen; and never to any collective.

More recent efforts to Google it up have come up dry.

It's in Heller I

 

[woodwork201]

I've read the congressional debates from 1789 onward, fuck-tard.

From Scalia's book, Reading Law, here's a quote from James Madison in 1821: "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character."

The book actually has several pages of examples from the Founders and ratification era cases to the same point. You'll have to buy the book if you want to really understand how to interpret the law and why the debates are meaningless but I'll leave you with one more. This one refers to laws in Congress but it makes the same point. It is from Chief Justice Taney in 1845: "The law as it is passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself."

In context of the Constitution, you can understand this to say that the Constitution as ratified is the will of the legislatures of all 13 of the States that ratified it and the only mode that will was spoken is in the Constitution itself. Whatever things were discussed in the debates, in the hallways, in the outhouses, were ideas that mean nothing unless they are the idea t hat was agreed upon by all 13 legislatures and ratified into the 2nd Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's really very simple for those with IQs above 60.

 

[woodwork201]

Why would I do that when I can read what was said when the 2nd Amendment was actually being discussed and debated in the 1st Congress?

As I have demonstrated, the debates mean nothing. The words of the Document are all that matter. The right of the PEOPLE.

 

[woodwork201]

He's wrong. The people who drafted the 2nd Amendment never said anything about the 2nd Amendment being an individual right.

Yes they did. They said "the people". They didn't say the government has a right to a jury trial. You and Jack Smith seem to think that they said the government has a right to a speedy trial but that was for the people, too.

 

[woodwork201]

If it were self-explanatory there wouldn't have been court cases to decide what it meant.

Actually, come to think of it, before 2008, there was really only one Supreme Court case that ever truly made a judgment regarding the 2nd Amendment's relationship to personal firearms, and that was the United States v Miller case of 1939.

It wasn't until 2008 that the Courts suggested that the 2nd Amendment protected personal firearms ownership for anything other than militia service. My position, in case you haven't figured it out, is that the Court replaced originalism with strict textualism.

Ironically, three of the justices who were around to decide that case (Heller) on the basis of textualism, now appear likely to use originalism to argue that Trump should remain on the ballot in all 50 states.

It's self-explanatory. The court cases come because lawyers need money and government needs power.

 

[woodwork201]

I have the historical record to prove it.

Let's see what you've got. You keep talking but you're not showing anything. You will never in a million years beat me in a debate about the 2nd Amendment based on historical record so show me what you've got.

 

[woodwork201]

Why is it SCOTUS is only "right" when they rule in your favor? Regardless, SCOTUS says we get to keep our guns.

I never assume the Supreme Court is right. Remember that almost always there are some of these supposedly smartest legal minds in the nation who are wrong and some who are right. In almost every case, I'm smarter than some of them because I'm right and some of them are not.

So I never assume that something is right just because they said it. What they say certainly gets treated like the law (though they also say it is not the law) and I follow it because I don't want to go to prison. But their words are part of the total package of information that I have to evaluate before I decide what is right or wrong. So if you really want to know what's right or wrong on the Constitution, you should be asking me; I've been deciding that for 50+ years.

Ok, the last part is a joke, sort of. It emphasizes that it's not the court. You have all the information you need to decide for yourself what is right or wrong. But you're still welcome to ask me for your opinion and I'll give it to you.

By the way, they're mostly right in Heller and in Bruen, but not completely. I might start a different thread to show where they're wrong. I talk about it a lot on X.

 

[surada]

you dont like facts and resort to lying I get that, being a closet Islamist it goes with the territory.

So now you're a mind reader too?

 

[surada]

No, not every single person but most men aged 18 and above did because in many colonies that was the law. You were, in some colonies before the revolution, required to own a gun and to bring it with you to public meetings and such. Of course as the Revolution era approached, the King's men started to limit arms because, as tyrants always do, they began to fear the people because they knew the people had good reason to be angry with the Government.

How did they limit guns?

 

[Cellblock2429]

...... the guns at the time were -

Revolutionary War Guns | Facts, Information & History

These revolutionary war guns are the firearms most represented throughout the course of the revolutionary war. Find out more facts & information.

www.revolutionary-war.net

/----/ Hey Gun Grabber. You forgot the Puckle Gun of 1718. So the Founders knew about rapid fire arms and that progress in design was face paced.

The First

The Puckle Gun is one of those firearms of which only a couple of examples exist in the world, but which is covered in a great deal of introductory firearms books, usually in their section on the history of machine guns.This has led many to assume the Puckle Gun was some kind of proto-machine...

www.thefirearmblog.com

What makes the Puckle significant to the development of rapid fire guns? Its features. It is one of the earliest, if not the earliest breechloading guns to my knowledge that incorporates all of the following features necessary for a modern rapid-fire gun:

• A method of sealing the chamber to prevent gas escape
• A quick-changeable feeding device for rapid reloading
• Pre-set, integrated priming to elminate the priming stage of loading and protect the priming compound from the environment

Previous breechloaders did incorporate one or two of these features, but Puckle’s gun combined all three to produce a true rapid-fire weapon.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Hey Gun Grabber. You forgot the Puckle Gun of 1718. So the Founders knew about rapid fire arms and that progress in design was face paced.

The First

The Puckle Gun is one of those firearms of which only a couple of examples exist in the world, but which is covered in a great deal of introductory firearms books, usually in their section on the history of machine guns.This has led many to assume the Puckle Gun was some kind of proto-machine...

www.thefirearmblog.com

What makes the Puckle significant to the development of rapid fire guns? Its features. It is one of the earliest, if not the earliest breechloading guns to my knowledge that incorporates all of the following features necessary for a modern rapid-fire gun:

• A method of sealing the chamber to prevent gas escape
• A quick-changeable feeding device for rapid reloading
• Pre-set, integrated priming to elminate the priming stage of loading and protect the priming compound from the environment

Previous breechloaders did incorporate one or two of these features, but Puckle’s gun combined all three to produce a true rapid-fire weapon.
View attachment 916038

/----/ And these:
Another relatively rapid fire weapon was the Ferguson Rifle invented by British officer, Major Patrick Ferguson. The Ferguson Rifle was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle. It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day. Using the Ferguson Rifle, light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone. This rifle was used by the British against the Americans in 1777. Read more

The Girandoni air rifle was an airgun designed by Tyrolian inventor Bartholomäus Girandoni circa 1779. The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. This rifle had a lethal combat range of 125 to 150 yards. It had the advantage of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report. It had a detachable magazine containing 19 rounds of ammunition. A single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. Read more

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Hey Gun Grabber. You forgot the Puckle Gun of 1718. So the Founders knew about rapid fire arms and that progress in design was face paced.

The First

The Puckle Gun is one of those firearms of which only a couple of examples exist in the world, but which is covered in a great deal of introductory firearms books, usually in their section on the history of machine guns.This has led many to assume the Puckle Gun was some kind of proto-machine...

www.thefirearmblog.com

What makes the Puckle significant to the development of rapid fire guns? Its features. It is one of the earliest, if not the earliest breechloading guns to my knowledge that incorporates all of the following features necessary for a modern rapid-fire gun:

• A method of sealing the chamber to prevent gas escape
• A quick-changeable feeding device for rapid reloading
• Pre-set, integrated priming to elminate the priming stage of loading and protect the priming compound from the environment

Previous breechloaders did incorporate one or two of these features, but Puckle’s gun combined all three to produce a true rapid-fire weapon.
View attachment 916038

/-----/ Captain Caveman marked my post about the Puckle gun as fake news. I'd wonder if he could prove me wrong.