This is a fun video to watch, but in case you don’t have the time (it’s just over 14 minutes), Senator John Kennedy brings a pistol brace to the floor to mock and educate those who would ban it.
14 Likes
A reasonable argument under the current laws in place.
But instead of arguing that a pistol is a pistol and a rifle is a rifle they should be arguing that a firearm is a firearm regardless of the barrel length.
There is no valid argument under the 2A that firearms with attachments or certain “features” should be regulated differently from firearms without them.
9 Likes
Was there ever a time in the 19th century when politicians argued that the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t cover things like jacketed bullets encased with the powder and primer, or multi-shot revolvers?
We take those things for granted, today. But anti-2A folks love to argue that the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t cover arms technology that the framers didn’t know about. When was this type of argument first presented?
5 Likes
I’m curious about when this argument started as well.
It is clear based on their writings that the authors and ratifiers of the 2A intended for citizens to be at least as well armed as the typical infantry soldier in the current military.
Many citizens actually had better weapons than the typical soldier of the day at the time the 2A was written. The typical soldier had a smoothbore musket that was very hard to hit where you were aiming even at only 50 yards. The Kentucky long rifle owned by many settlers was accurate out to 200 yards and beyond.
5 Likes
AS well, the militia, being “irregulars” and, as such, not part of the regular army, was expected to show up for battle with their own firearms and ammunition. It should be noted that, the British return to Boston after Lexington and Concord were hampered in that endeavor by being sniped upon by the ragged rabble of the militia all the way back to the point that the did not venture out of Boston thereafter. Check it out.
8 Likes
True, but the British musketry tactics favored the number of rounds fired over most other considerations. If you put enough people on line to fire simultaneous volleys of half inch lead balls, then have them reload quickly and fire again, you’re going to do a lot of damage. In fact, prior to Von Steuben, most U.S. units didn’t have a command to take aim, they’d merely “present” and then “fire.”
The rifle was much slower to load, which meant that riflemen had to shoot from a long way away, or else they’d quickly become victims to those mass volleys.
3 Likes
Here’s my point against people who claim that the second amendment only applies to firearms in common use 245 years ago. If that’s the case, then the first amendment only applies to words printed on paper or parchment. News outlets that distribute electronically would not be protected, as the framers “couldnt have imagined modern, instant distribution of information and how dangerous that can be.” Religions that have developed since that time are not protected. The 4th amendment only lists “persons, houses, papers and effects” so all digital records and property are fair game, right, as “the framers couldn’t have imagined we’d store our private records on distant computer servers or pocket computers”?
11 Likes
It says ARMS.
3 Likes
One thing that interests me is that while the casualty rates were fairly high I still find it amazing that there were so many misses. When you had hundreds and sometimes thousands of people firing as fast as they could reload while standing shoulder to shoulder only 50 yards from each other I would think it would be hard to miss, yet the majority of the soldiers in an engagement would not be hit.
Makes me wonder if the muskets were that completely inaccurate or did a high percentage of soldiers just not take the time to aim when shots were coming their way? Or maybe a certain percentage of people just don’t like aiming at other people even if they are on the opposite team? I personally would prefer fighting from behind cover from as far away as possible instead of standing there with a bunch of other people imitating a shooting range target.
5 Likes
Careful there. You might give the authoritarians some new ideas and the freedom of speech is already under enough threat at the moment:/
5 Likes
Sorry?
That is a fantastic question! I wish I had some idea what the answer is. I don’t think it’s an easy answer, though. 18th century battles were very different depending on the armies and the terrain. By the time of the American Revolution, tactics were slowly changing, and the armies that learned to use the terrain to their advantage would naturally have lower casualty rates.
And contrary to how they’re portrayed, armies were not static while they stood and shot at each other. They were constantly maneuvering; it was a game to get the advantage over the adversary. And not all forces at a battle would be directly engaged. So for example, I just saw that the Battle of Waterloo (1815) the casualty rate was 1 in 4 for the forces engaged. That’s a pretty high number, once you filter out the units that weren’t directly engaged.
I’ll throw in another possibility: the range of muskets. Armies tended to use them to soften up the enemy from a distance. But once within range, they’d fix bayonets and charge. Many battles either ended in hand-to-hand combat or the losing side would withdraw from the field. (A company of infantry carrying muskets essentially fulfilled the roles of both archers and pikemen.)
3 Likes
They were forward thinking enough to not limit it to anything less than what would be effective.
4 Likes
The framers of the Constitution were in no way idiots and I am confident that they fully understood the changing technology. So to say the 2nd amendment should not apply to modern weapons because the framers knew nothing about modern weaponry is ludicrous.
5 Likes
I don’t think anyone then or now can fully understand the implications of rapidly changing technology. But it is clear the framers had no intention of limiting citizens to muzzle loaders while soldiers and criminals are allowed to carry much more advanced weaponry.
4 Likes
I was angered by his stupid, stupid statement about the Second Amendement when he said, “… the Second Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms.” This is absolutely a false statement, and making such stupid, false statements hurts our cause greatly. The Second Amendment does NOT “grant” the right to keep and bear arms. I am also embarrassed by so many in the firearms community, ALMOST EVERYONE in the firearm community, who have NO CLUE what the Second Amendment clearly actually says and clearly and actually means by its plain language. CAN NONE OF YOU READ???!!!
The Second Amendment does NOT say, "the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, what it says is, “…THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE …” (that refers to an EXISTING right, NOT a then-presently granted right) “… SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” THERE IT IS, PLAIN AS DAY!!!
I was also greatly embarrased by the drawings he put up show some fairytale brace and pistol combo. Absolutely nothing like the real use of braces on AR pistols.
2 Likes
Yet, another interpretation of the 2nd Amendment…
I didn’ watch the video. Nice catch.
1 Like
It’s not an “interpretation.” THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS!!! TRY ACTUALLY READING IT!!! I doubt that you even know what the word “interpretation” means. I doubt that you’ve actually ever even read it. Where does it say, “… the people shall have the right”? Answer: It doesn’t. It says, “… the right of the people …” If you can’t read plain English, and if you can’t see the differenced, there is no hope for you. There is probably no hope for almost all of you, judging by the stupid memes and all that you all waste your times and lives posting here. It’s no wonder that Liberals and Leftists run intellectual circles around you, even as dumb as many of them are. I’m out of here. I don’t have time for debate with idiots.
2 Likes