New Gun Control Measures Set To Be Announced Today By The Senate

The author of the Constitution (including the 2nd Amendment), James Madison, thought private individuals should have the most modern weapons available, even hiring them to go attack British naval assets.

When it comes to attacking our rights, doing nothing is much better than doing little.

 

Why are automatic guns so strictly regulated yet semi-automatic guns are not? The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean doing so won't cost you a substantial amount or that it can't be reasonably age restricted.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

 

He also died the year the revolver was invented.

 

Spoiler

https://americansocietyofarmscollec...68-B18-Six-Shooters-Since-Sixteen-Hundred.pdf

 

Madison wrote his Fourth (If I remember right the Second proposed Amendment at the time was his Fourth proposed Amendment) in order to calm the concerns of 5-6 colonies that had not agreed to Ratify the Constitution yet. The concern was over a FEDERAL standing army, and 5-6 colonies had been proposing an Amendment to bar a federal standing army. Madison was trying to get support for the Constitution by allowing each colony to raise their own militia or local army. The use of arms was a consequence of the right to a state militia (or military).

I suppose the first thing that really stands out to me when I read what Madison (who contrary to popular opinion was not the only voice or opinion) and others said at the time, is just how out of touch they were with the modern world that we all live in. This SHOULD'NT be a surprise as it was hundreds of years ago, but the idea that we must be blindly tied at all points by what was essentially purposely vague Amendments is silly. The concern of Madison was a simple political one, he needed the Constitution ratified and some colonies were scared of the idea of a federal standing military (which of course we have). So he wrote an Amendment that was purposely vague. There is also discussion of people being able to avoid military service because of religious belief, yet hundreds of years later in WWI, WWII and Vietnam; we decided it was convenient to act as if this part never existed.

Further, if you do a plain reading of the Second Amendment, the federal government has the right to no restrictions on gun ownership. No exceptions are listed in the Second Amendment and it plainly says "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed". So if we are going to go with the Second Amendment, it is open season for anyone that is a US citizen to own a gun, any gun. Madison said that having an armed populous was an advantage over other countries as well.

I believe there wasn't even any restrictions on guns in the USA until the 1930's under Roosevelt.

So many may look at that and conclude that everyone should be able to be armed as they want. I look at it as further proof that holding to the "original" intent of the Framers is foolish and not likely what the Founding (white and property owning, some slave owning) Fathers (no female representation) would have wanted anyway.

 

FFS, dude.

 

For context, the Secret Service didn't even start putting details on the President until 1901 after some dude walked up to McKinley and shot him twice.

The amount of access Americans had with their politicians even at the beginning of the 20th century is unimaginable.

So you got that mindset for the framers, and then there's the fact that there weren't gatling guns for folksy but ornery farmers to lug around in 1776. Most they could do in their time would be to take a few minutes to load gunpowder and a lead ball, shoot, then do it again.

 

And?

 

Why is that a problem? What about that person makes it a an issue?

 

At least something that would actually help. Otherwise we could implement the proposed bi-partisan micro step they are talking about today. Ok, I suppose you could argue if it somehow prevents a mass a slaughter of two that is for the good.

 

I am surprised the Sentars negotiating on this did not propose something like splitting the difference between 18 and 21 yrs as the age in which you have a Constitutional right per the Dirty 5 rulers on the S.Ct to buy AR 15's.

 

Great. I don't think it'll make any difference, but why not.

Madison is dead and has no skin in this game.

 

Two inane statements. 1) Silly to believe that the granted intelligent authors of the Constitution should have the last word on the issue two hundreds later. 2) Truisms can be stupid too. E.g a man is starving is it really much better to give him a half piece of bread than doing little.

 

Times have changed dramatically since then indeed. Guns have changed dramatically! When you add more than 300 million people to the mix you get a hell of a lot more crazies and violent people buying guns.

 

Good lord...

You're agreeing with this guy that a trans person must be mentally unbalanced?

Pathetic.

 

Commodore's always been a tweeting idiot, but I had never previously put him in the transphobic bigot category. Learn something new every day.

 

Yeah... that's one of the most egregious posts with respect to prejudice ever posted on this site.

Clearly proves his true colors and how low he can go.

 

Again rights don’t exist without responsibility. That was certainly a view that the founders had as they went to lengths to explain that individual arms were for a militia that would not just be well regulated but also we’ll disciplined.

 

Also just to point out to attack the British Navy you needed a letter of Marque which essentially was legalized piracy.

Madison didn’t consider owning cannons or warships just as a right with no restrictions. From the earliest days of the US Navy they went after armed privateers.