2nd Amendment was for muskets
❝ A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ❞
|2A was for muskets
|The 2A was passed when the people only had muskets, therefor only muskets are protected under the 2A. The founding fathers couldn't have imagined changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles.
|The Founding Fathers wrote about balancing power between the people and the government: when the firepower changed, it needed to change equally for both sides (personal weapons). But ignoring the flawed premise, the lack of historical understanding is gobsmacking stupid: since at the founding of the country we had 8-shot revolvers, 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" fully automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with one pull of the trigger. Anyone that makes the argument that the 2A was for muskets disqualifies themselves from rational discussion on guns and gun technology.
Remember, “The word is mightier than the sword (or gun)”, goes back to the 7th century. So by the luddites reasoning, the phone, radio, TV, Internet (twitter, Facebook, email and texting) should invalidate the first amendment too, as speech is a bigger threat than swords or guns? The gun-controllers seem to think the Constitution is a “living document” that protects tweets, emails, and texts — but the 2nd only applied to muskets? Puhlease. Of course, our individual rights are NOT dependent on the technology used — because they were declared to be the people’s right, not the right to technology. Thus we don’t only get free speech if you’re using a Franklin Printing Press, and your right to be secure in your home is not dependent on an absence of electricity, indoor plumbing or only using muzzle loaders (centuries after we had semi-automatic repeaters). We have our rights, regardless of the technology used to express them.
When you talk about "Reasonable Gun Laws" remember that anyone that brings up this argument, isn't being reasonable or informed. They are making an appeal to ignorance -- the only question is whether they are that ignorant themselves, or they are intentionally trying to deceive others knowing better. But either disqualifies them from having an open and honest debate.
1400's gave us 2, 3, 4 Shot multi-barrel guns
1597 gave us the 8 Shot Revolvers
1600-1700 gave us 30 shot "repeaters"
1718 gave us the 11 Shot Field Artillery Piece (Puckle Gun)
1777 gave us fully-automatic weapons
1779 gave us the 22 Girandoni air rifle
1854 gave us a belt fed rifle with 14 rounds
Many Founding Fathers lived well into the 19th century, not one ever thought to complain that technical advances were moving further than the 2nd Amendment (or 1st) should allow: that invention came in the second half of the 20th century, by collectivists that wanted to invent excuses take away our liberties. But that delusional construct has no basis in history, just in desire.
There is another argument that guns have gotten "more lethal over the years". This is true, but it totally ignores that medicine has gained in technology too. You are far less likely to die today from a gunshot wound, even WITH higher technology and higher velocity weapons, than you would in the 18th century. Furthermore, individuals back then were allowed to own artillery and explosives, that could do far more mass damage than our measly so called "assault weapons” could today. So the lethality argument can only appeal to the ignorant.
The 2nd Amendment was about the framers philosophy that the People could and should be trusted to be free (and to be able to secure that freedom with their own hands/guns), and Governments could not be trusted (and would try to take that away) — thus they called out specifically, multiple times, our natural and inalienable right to self defense, both in the Declaration, the Constitution, and in the debates and letters of the time. We can debate whether that’s anachronistic concept, or should we allow gun controllers to take it away, but not its original intent.
Thus the argument that lethality should change the rules, or that the founder fathers couldn’t foresee firearms other than single-shot musket rifles (or that it would matter, in any way) is based on gun-controllers' profound lack of knowledge on the topics of Guns, History, Constitutional rights (law), language, technology, and the founders original intent. Anyone that still insists on using those demonstrably wrong argument (after they’ve been corrected once), shows that they're either liars or fools. And the fact that they used these arguments before doing their basic research (and knowing what they’re talking about), hints strongly at the latter.
Written: 2016.09.07 Edited 2017