Question about American gun laws.

[Tank]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

[pinkocommie]

Hahaha, it depends on who you talk to and how they feel about the second amendment.  Personally, I would say yes to a degree, but I am not a gun person.  I don't believe that a waiting period so that someone's background can be checked to make sure they're not obviously batshit insane, for example, is a bad thing.  Others would argue that criminals and the gov'ment don't got a waitin' period, so neither should anyone else.  And honestly, I can understand the logic behind this argument.  It's not a subject I'll often debate about, however, because gun people are crazy and I don't want them coming to my house and shooting me in the face.  

[Tank]

Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

[pinkocommie]

Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

That's what I was taught in school.  The wiki article on the second amendment pretty much follows what I was taught in my government class -

Struggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[59][60]

interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection; and
a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[61] These changes were codified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ... (12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; (13) To provide and maintain a navy; (14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Proposals to enlarge federal powers were met with distrust among some representatives, concerned by the inherent risks of centralizing power. These representatives sought protection. A debate ensued.

Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[62] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[63][64] Anti-federalists, however, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many anti-federalists feared the new federal government might choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. Nevertheless, upon realizing there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights, federalists conceded, promising that upon enactment they would support amending the Constitution with a bill of rights. Enough anti-Federalists were persuaded by this compromise to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[65] The Constitution was declared ratified June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[66] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the first Congress on June 8, 1789 and came into effect on December 15, 1791.

I think there was definitely concern about people being able to defend themselves against the government if things got out of control and the government began trying to force people to do things the people didn't want to do.  Our government is supposed to be by, of, and for the people - the government is supposed to be a tool we use, not an entity that controls us.  I think maybe that's why some people are so intent about making sure the second amendment isn't changed or weakened - the government now has far more power and control over the lives of the American public than I think the founding fathers ever intended - a lot of people see the second amendment as a kind of last guarantee against tyranny.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which, although I sympathize with it, is completely obsolete as an argument, given the firepower and technology the military possesses.

I learned shooting at age 9, and am teaching my son how to handle a gun.  This is something every person ought to know, if for no other reason than safety.  Also, it does a kid good to see what a gun can do; that's the quickest way to show them exactly how dangerous they can be.

[Big Mac]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

I don't think so. At the time those weapons were indeed advanced military hardware. At the time of the 1st Amendment books were printed by a crude device by today's standards. Does that mean it only applies to publications printed on a manual press?

On a side note, if you come to my neck of the woods, we'll go out and blast away on my AK and M4 as well as my .357 mag and the other stuff I own. It's a lot of fun.

[Big Mac]

Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

Yes, yes there was. Many letters and quotes by the Framers made it clear that they believed that one day the citizens might have to take up arms again to overthrow a tyrannical government, an enemy that could be foreign or domestic.

[KDbeads]

I'm one on the fence, I see both sides of the gun control thing.  Where idiots can do real damage with a military type weapon, it's good in the hands of a person who knows what they are doing and isn't a homicidal maniac.
Hubby was against guns for the longest time, now that we've lived in TX for a few years he understands why we need one on hand.  I grew up with guns and know how to use most of them, don't bother me at all to see a rifle or 3 or a shotgun hanging in the back window of someone's truck.  I just don't like the idea of a concealed weapon in a vehicle.  Can lead to too many problems in the wrong situation with the wrong people.

As for defensive issues... y'all Texans do know those along the border who have not left have been told to arm themselves heavily in case of the Mexican drug war coming further into the state right?  My info is from the sheriff's department  

[Big Mac]

I'm one on the fence, I see both sides of the gun control thing.  Where idiots can do real damage with a military type weapon, it's good in the hands of a person who knows what they are doing and isn't a homicidal maniac.
Hubby was against guns for the longest time, now that we've lived in TX for a few years he understands why we need one on hand.  I grew up with guns and know how to use most of them, don't bother me at all to see a rifle or 3 or a shotgun hanging in the back window of someone's truck.  I just don't like the idea of a concealed weapon in a vehicle.  Can lead to too many problems in the wrong situation with the wrong people.

As for defensive issues... y'all Texans do know those along the border who have not left have been told to arm themselves heavily in case of the Mexican drug war coming further into the state right?  My info is from the sheriff's department  

I'm more of a "punish the ones who are a problem" type of people. Banning people from carrying guns on them is going to just affect those who actually obey the law. If you're intent on committing crime, gun laws are not going to stop you.

You know what's really funny? People act like semi-auto rifles (assault rifles are capable of select-fire ie Auto or Three-Round Burst) can mow down a lot of people. They really can't do as well as someone who stakes out and picks people off with a good scoped deer rifle (Charles Whitman methodically wiped out 19 people with no need to spray bullets) than someone who fires spray and pray style.

Just want to point out that most "assault" rifles you see are actually a lot less powerful (ballistics wise) than a deer rifle or a bolt action WWII weapon (my Mosin-Nagant fires a 7.62x54R which way more potent than the 7.62x39mm my AK-47 fires and doubly so for the small 5.56x45mm my M4 fires).

I don't disagree, in the wrong hands guns are a very dangerous item. But so are cars, knives, matches, computers (deranged hackers not being very common but still), household chemicals, baseball bats, chairs, weights, etc.

[Tank]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

I don't think so. At the time those weapons were indeed advanced military hardware. At the time of the 1st Amendment books were printed by a crude device by today's standards. Does that mean it only applies to publications printed on a manual press?

Printing lots of books is rarely fatal  

On a side note, if you come to my neck of the woods, we'll go out and blast away on my AK and M4 as well as my .357 mag and the other stuff I own. It's a lot of fun.

I have shot at Bisley as a kid. And shot clays and target pistol. My father brought a number of 'trophies' back from WWII but gave them up in the 70's during a firearms amnesty as they were unlicensed. I used to love having a real gun as a toy!

[KDbeads]

I agree, I can do a lot of damage with a regular rifle.  But I know how to use it  
Too many are not taught how to and where to use guns so they fear them, all of them, that I think is the crux of the 'control' problem.  Especially if they get all their info from Hollywood.  Plus the idiots who abuse the right to own a gun need to be dealt with, as you said.

[Big Mac]

I agree, I can do a lot of damage with a regular rifle.  But I know how to use it  
Too many are not taught how to and where to use guns so they fear them, all of them, that I think is the crux of the 'control' problem.  Especially if they get all their info from Hollywood.  Plus the idiots who abuse the right to own a gun need to be dealt with, as you said.

Hollywood really makes it seem like guns are the death rays. Especially love the thing where a handgun will send a man flying. Ignoring the basic laws of physics. Or the classic "you don't even have to aim a shotgun!". Or how like it's either really quiet or like a nuclear blast when it comes to sound. If you fire a gun like a .357 magnum in a small room, you will go temporarily deaf or suffer permanent hearing loss.

Or I love the whole "one guy takes on 20". In real life, that'd be one dead guy. I don't care if you were a SEAL, Green Beret, etc. you aren't invincible. But of course that's all entertainment so you suspend your disbelief.

It's unfortunate some people get their info from movies and TV. Though I admit they have gotten better about it (1st episode of the show K-Ville was real accurate about wearing a vest and getting hit by a bullet, the guy still goes down but lives but he's hurting bad from it.)

Here's an example of media misrepresenting guns badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8U5gu38718

I have no idea what "Drop the chambers in" even means...it's almost as bad as Senator McCarthy here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

I got one more that will top it off. Apparently incendiary bullets are now "Heat seeking bullets". LULZ keep coming in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

[Tank]

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

Which is exactly what it was designed to do as the use of dumdum, fragmenting and explosive rounds in war was banned under the Haig convention.

[Gawen]

Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.