Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

[NJGF 375]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

By David Kopel

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.008af046c530

 

"Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms."

 

An interesting brief summary of the evolution of modern firearms. Who would of thought that the author of the 2nd amendment James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe would be responsible for the start of the development of modern repeating arms!

[Newtonian 453]

Is the first amendment less broadly or more broadly interpreted because we have 50 ways of expressing ideas today, to the entire world, instead of two? I'd say more broadly although today's assaults on free speech claim nuances that have thus far not held up in court.

 

As for the others, it's a mixed bag. Take the 4th Amendment. Technology has improved by leaps and bounds, as have protections, but here the gov't's legal powers have improved faster than our rights. There are also all sorts of crazy rules that invalidate 5th amendment claims but if you just keep your mouth shut you still have them.

 

2nd Amendment: Government has had the advantage from the beginning. First with sheer numbers, plus cannons, then warships and nukes. I'd say they hold a tremendous advantage. Our guns have improved but theirs have improved 1000x more. 

[124gr9mm 859]

 

The Volokh Conspiracy: Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

By David Kopel

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.008af046c530

 

"Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms."

 

An interesting brief summary of the evolution of modern firearms. Who would of thought that the author of the 2nd amendment James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe would be responsible for the start of the development of modern repeating arms!

 

 

 

I think the people who make those arguments ignore the intent of the 2nd amendment.  The framers ABSOLUTELY wanted citizens to be armed with "military style" weapons.  There was an expectation that the militia's would need to fight!!!!!!

 

I read a book called "The Second Amendment: a biography" by Michael Waldman that recounts some of the debate prior to the final draft for the amendment.  It's a good read and it shows that if anything politicians were concerned that the militias would only have their shotguns and hunting guns instead of proper rifles for combat.

[jackandjill 683]

Verbal, Physical and Legal opportunity to protect & preserve self is foundation of personal freedom and social justice.  First, Second and Due process codify these basic rights.

 

Without such foundation, dictatorship rules the earth and slavery becomes norm. Its interesting how certain "champions" of progress and liberty conveniently argue against Right To Bear Arms.

 

Animal rights activists argue that even wild animals deserve these rights. So its beyond me as to why fellow humans don't deserve same. 

 

The meaning and importance of these basic rights do not change just because we invent a different tool or colonize mars.