What's wrong with smart guns?

[MikeK]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

 

[dannyboys]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

The founding fathers used the words "arms" meaning whatever weapons were in existence at the time that could be used to protect the United States.
The intent was the same no matter what the arms could do.
In a hundred years high energy impulses will be the weapon to keep America safe.
Back then muskets. Today AR 15s. Same fucking difference.

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

The founding fathers used the words "arms" meaning whatever weapons were in existence at the time that could be used to protect the United States.
The intent was the same no matter what the arms could do.
In a hundred years high energy impulses will be the weapon to keep America safe.
Back then muskets. Today AR 15s. Same fucking difference.

So given your first and last sentence you contradicted your own post.

Thanks for playin'.

 

[2aguy]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

But interestingly....that takes us right back to the forms of written expression and speech. It is obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceieved such as telephones, computers, the internet with their ability to transfer information superior to the basic printing presses and letter writing of their time, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included had they been capable of conceiving of Satelites, computers, the internet, laptops, or even modern Pens..........?

 

[Iceweasel]

Let''s invent a smart liberal first, then work on smart guns.

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

But interestingly....that takes us right back to the forms of written expression and speech. It is obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceieved such as telephones, computers, the internet with their ability to transfer information superior to the basic printing presses and letter writing of their time, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included had they been capable of conceiving of Satelites, computers, the internet, laptops, or even modern Pens..........?

Ah but the First Amendment doesn't refer to a technology (a noun) -- it refers to action ("speech/press/religion/assembly"). Action doesn't contain a qualification as to how it may be expressed.

"Arms", however, as used, is a noun. So what you have here is apples and oranges. And therein lies the question: define the noun. That's not necessary in the 1A.

Matter of fact it's not necessary in any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. 2A is the only one that deals with possession or use of a thing.

 

[2aguy]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

But interestingly....that takes us right back to the forms of written expression and speech. It is obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceieved such as telephones, computers, the internet with their ability to transfer information superior to the basic printing presses and letter writing of their time, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included had they been capable of conceiving of Satelites, computers, the internet, laptops, or even modern Pens..........?

Ah but the First Amendment doesn't refer to a technology (a noun) -- it refers to action ("speech/press/religion/assembly"). Action doesn't contain a qualification as to how it may be expressed.

"Arms", however, as used, is a noun. So what you have here is apples and oranges. And therein lies the question: define the noun. That's not necessary in the 1A.

Matter of fact it's not necessary in any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. 2A is the only one that deals with possession or use of a thing.

Nope.......you are wrong...since you state speech is action then there would be absolutely no protection for any modern communication devise...while Arms, are a physical item, and would have been anticipated to change over time....according to what you say......

But, it is all dumb....the Founders just finished a war for freedom against the worlds greatest military. Had they been able to see where military tech would be over 200 years later "Shall not be infringed" would have become "The people Must, have guns in their homes and absolutely no standing army ever, ever ever.........."

And then if you let them know about what the nations of Europe did, a mere 163 years in the future....murdering 12 million innocent men, women and children (of all ages) then they would have doubled the number of guns required to be owned by the citizens of the United States........

I think that as intelligent as they were and as wise as they were they would still have been amazed at how stupid modern leftists are and their inability to respect or understand Freedom.

 

[Pogo]

Nope.......you are wrong...since you state speech is action then there would be absolutely no protection for any modern communication devise...while Arms, are a physical item, and would have been anticipated to change over time....according to what you say......

Again for the slow --- "device" is a noun. 1A says absolutely nothing about "devices". Or nouns. It's about action, as are all the Amendments with the exception of 2A, and two other Amendments: 18 and 21, which prohibited, and then un-prohibited, alcohol.

Those are the only Amendments that deal with a physical thing. And the definition of the one in the latter two, ironically, isn't as fluid as the one in 2A.

The 2A is altogether different from every other Amendment. In more ways than this.

But, it is all dumb....the Founders just finished a war for freedom against the worlds greatest military. Had they been able to see where military tech would be over 200 years later "Shall not be infringed" would have become "The people Must, have guns in their homes and absolutely no standing army ever, ever ever.........."

Speculation fallacy, but its existence validates that the question I posed is a question.

We cannot project a woulda-shoulda-coulda for people who are not here to ask. What we can do is interpret what version of it works for us.

And then if you let them know about what the nations of Europe did, a mere 163 years in the future....murdering 12 million innocent men, women and children (of all ages) then they would have doubled the number of guns required to be owned by the citizens of the United States........

More speculations.

I think that as intelligent as they were and as wise as they were they would still have been amazed at how stupid modern leftists are and their inability to respect or understand Freedom.

And now ad hominem. Collect the whole set.

 

[Spoonman]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

so your sitting home alone while your husband is working late. someone breaks into your house with the intent to rob you, sees a woman home alone and figures he will rape you too. you grab your husbands smart gun to repel the invaders. Enjoy the ride honey. your gun may be shooting blanks but the rapist won't be.

btw, read the federalist papers. the founders intended the citizens to be as well armed as the regular army. so if the army wants to continue to use muskets too, you may have a point. Oh and BTW, 10 years before the 2nd amendment was written these very same founders place an order with a Philadelphia gun maker for a rapid fire gun that used a high capacity magazine.

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

 

[westwall]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

Not really. "Keep" "have or retain possession of." "Bear" "to carry or bring something:" The most common definitions according to the Cambridge Dictionary. Not ambiguous, not open to interpretation, unless you are of a disingenuous nature of course. Then any aspect of the English Language is open to perversion in the name of political expediency...

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

Not really. "Keep" "have or retain possession of." "Bear" "to carry or bring something:" The most common definitions according to the Cambridge Dictionary. Not ambiguous, not open to interpretation, unless you are of a disingenuous nature of course. Then any aspect of the English Language is open to perversion in the name of political expediency...

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

 

[Pogo]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

so your sitting home alone while your husband is working late. someone breaks into your house with the intent to rob you, sees a woman home alone and figures he will rape you too. you grab your husbands smart gun to repel the invaders. Enjoy the ride honey. your gun may be shooting blanks but the rapist won't be.

btw, read the federalist papers. the founders intended the citizens to be as well armed as the regular army. so if the army wants to continue to use muskets too, you may have a point. Oh and BTW, 10 years before the 2nd amendment was written these very same founders place an order with a Philadelphia gun maker for a rapid fire gun that used a high capacity magazine.

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

 

[westwall]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

Not really. "Keep" "have or retain possession of." "Bear" "to carry or bring something:" The most common definitions according to the Cambridge Dictionary. Not ambiguous, not open to interpretation, unless you are of a disingenuous nature of course. Then any aspect of the English Language is open to perversion in the name of political expediency...

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Sure it can and has been many, many times. I find it seriously funny that anyone would even attempt to make the claim that the Bill of Rights which specifically deals with INDIVIDUAL Rights, and one amendment that deals with the Rights of the individual States, also has in it a clause to make it legal for the Federal government to keep guns to defend itself...from itself.

That truly is the height of idiocy.

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

Not really. "Keep" "have or retain possession of." "Bear" "to carry or bring something:" The most common definitions according to the Cambridge Dictionary. Not ambiguous, not open to interpretation, unless you are of a disingenuous nature of course. Then any aspect of the English Language is open to perversion in the name of political expediency...

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Sure it can and has been many, many times. I find it seriously funny that anyone would even attempt to make the claim that the Bill of Rights which specifically deals with INDIVIDUAL Rights, and one amendment that deals with the Rights of the individual States, also has in it a clause to make it legal for the Federal government to keep guns to defend itself...from itself.

That truly is the height of idiocy.

None of the above has jack squat to do with anything I just posted in any way whatsoever, so I guess "height of idiocy" might be applicable here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The use of the word fucking doesn't make your so-called argument valid. And in fact, you seem to suggest that guns should always be loaded and at hand...

An unloaded gun is useless, however.

The stupid LIB coward bitch wants guns to be unloaded and you'll need a fingerprint to make them work.
What a fucking moron!
We have LEO who put their lives on the line to protect these assholes from getting raped and murdered!
Let's reconsider this.
Then when the human scum are saved they whine about 'men with guns'.
Men with guns, from the American Revolution to today, are the reason this stupid bitch is safe to be home alone.

Given your posting history – this post included – you're in no position to refer to anyone else as a 'moron.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

The word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment is presumed to mean firearms, which are weapons contemporary to that era and which are capable of being borne (carried).

I would think edged weapons, such as switchblade knives, would be included in the Amendment. They are arms.

Yeah -- "bear" is open to broad interpretation. One can "bear a burden" and not be carrying anything. And of course, if the arm in question is borne by a missile, platform or turret, but "I" am in control of that turret, am I not "bearing" that arm via use of a device?

Then of course there's the term "arms". You can also "bear" (physically carry) a small bomb or certainly a grenade. Does 2A then permit me to bear a grenade? "Arms", again broadly, may mean anything used in aggression. We refer to our nuclear weapons as "arms". A baseball bat, provided it's used for that purpose, may be an "arm" in that sense. What about a gigantic bomb, or nuke, triggered by the cell phone in my pocket? As the triggering device that causes it to detonate, am I carrying an "arm" in the cell phone? Does it not contain the power to destroy or not?

However the proper question is ---- was the term "arms" used that broadly in the 18th century? Did they have the habit of referring to a truncheon or shillelagh as "arms"? If they did not then the term must be taken as it would have been meant at the time of writing.

But interestingly...... that takes us right back to the muskets as the OP points out. It's obvious that the Founders' terms would have reflected the experiences of their day, and could not have encapsulated technologies that hadn't yet been conceived such as nukes, or even the superior accuracy and devastational power of the Minié Ball developed decades later, begging the question, would the Founders have intended that more contemporary level of technology to be included, had they been capable of conceiving tanks and nukes, or even AK-47s?

That's a fair and open question.

In fact the whole Amendment is singularly ambiguous and always has been, that stubborn leadoff subordinate clause still remaining enigmatic since the day it was written. No other Amendment is so composed.

The Framers' intent with the Second Amendment is consistent with that of the rest of the Constitution; to paraphrase Justice Kennedy, the Founding Generation didn't presume to have a comprehensive understanding of what manifests as citizens' rights and liberties – they created a Constitution whose case law would serve later generations of Americans to determine when government has overreached, and acted in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, and when government has acted wisely, enacting appropriate, reasonable restrictions on citizens' protected liberties.

The Second Amendment must also be consistently applied in relation to the jurisprudence of other Amendments and protected rights, such as the First and Fourth Amendments:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (DC v. Heller)

And we know for a fact that the Second Amendment is not 'absolute,' it is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment 's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” ibid

From this it's reasonable to infer that prohibiting citizens from possessing tanks and nuclear weapons constitutes a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, where the prohibition of an AR or AK pattern semi-automatic rifle is not; indeed, this is the current condition of the Second Amendment right: the right to possess a firearm pursuant to self-defense, but not a right to possess any firearm so desired, which fails as a reasonable restriction when one considers there's no evidence in support of such restrictions.

 

[Pogo]

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (DC v. Heller)

We kinda did this before but, court opinion notwithstanding, their comparison remains unworkable specious reasoning, in that the First Amendment guarantees speech (as well as religion and assembly), which are abstract actions. Regardless of the what newly developed technological method might be used to express said speech, the action itself -- i.e. the abstract thought --- does not change over time. Its purpose and its motivation are human and forever.

The Second Amendment, however, refers to a technological object ('arms', however we might define that). And being man-made devices, they are subject to revisions, modifications and improvements. Therefore the Court has established no basis for their apples/oranges comparison. As a false analogy it's a flawed argument.

As we also mentioned backthread, the Second Amendment is the only one to deal with a physical object rather than an abstract thought or action --- excepting the 18th (which prohibited alcohol, and which was repealed by the 21st anyway). Had the 18th not been repealed, we might have been facing the same definitional question on new alcohol technologies not known in the 18th Century such as powdered alcohol.

 

[Missourian]

Get the NYPD, LAPD, FBI and Secret Service to adopt smart guns for a 2 year trial...then come back and see us.

 

[Spoonman]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

so your sitting home alone while your husband is working late. someone breaks into your house with the intent to rob you, sees a woman home alone and figures he will rape you too. you grab your husbands smart gun to repel the invaders. Enjoy the ride honey. your gun may be shooting blanks but the rapist won't be.

btw, read the federalist papers. the founders intended the citizens to be as well armed as the regular army. so if the army wants to continue to use muskets too, you may have a point. Oh and BTW, 10 years before the 2nd amendment was written these very same founders place an order with a Philadelphia gun maker for a rapid fire gun that used a high capacity magazine.

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day