Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What ‘arms’ looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written
- Snip -
The heated discussions over gun control and gun rights that inevitably follow mass shootings like the one in Orlando typically revolve around interpretations of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. In full, the amendment reads, rather murkily, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The wording leaves plenty of room for legal and political wrangling over the meaning of words like "well regulated," "militia," "right," "people," "keep," "bear" and "arms."
- Snip -
The National Rifle Association has explicitly embraced a message of Second Amendment "absolutism" in recent years. "Absolutes do exist," NRA President Wayne LaPierre said after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "We are as ‘absolutist’ as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. And we’re proud of it!"
- Snip -
Of course, semiautomatic firearms technology didn't exist in any meaningful sense in the era of the founding fathers. They had something much different in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. The typical firearms of the day were muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time, and a skilled shooter could hope to get off three or possibly four rounds in a minute of firing. By all accounts they were not particularly accurate either.
- Snip -
But evolving technology does call for evolving regulation. And, in practice, the implementation of the Second Amendment has never been strictly "absolute." Most gun owners accept that civilians typically can't own fully automatic rifles or tanks or nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the "arms" of the Second Amendment has evolved over the years, subject to shifts in political and legal norms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-men-who-wrote-the-2nd-amendment-would-never-recognize-an-ar-15/
The heated discussions over gun control and gun rights that inevitably follow mass shootings like the one in Orlando typically revolve around interpretations of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. In full, the amendment reads, rather murkily, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The wording leaves plenty of room for legal and political wrangling over the meaning of words like "well regulated," "militia," "right," "people," "keep," "bear" and "arms."
- Snip -
The National Rifle Association has explicitly embraced a message of Second Amendment "absolutism" in recent years. "Absolutes do exist," NRA President Wayne LaPierre said after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "We are as ‘absolutist’ as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. And we’re proud of it!"
- Snip -
Of course, semiautomatic firearms technology didn't exist in any meaningful sense in the era of the founding fathers. They had something much different in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. The typical firearms of the day were muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time, and a skilled shooter could hope to get off three or possibly four rounds in a minute of firing. By all accounts they were not particularly accurate either.
- Snip -
But evolving technology does call for evolving regulation. And, in practice, the implementation of the Second Amendment has never been strictly "absolute." Most gun owners accept that civilians typically can't own fully automatic rifles or tanks or nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the "arms" of the Second Amendment has evolved over the years, subject to shifts in political and legal norms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-men-who-wrote-the-2nd-amendment-would-never-recognize-an-ar-15/
When the absolutists stop portraying themselves as victims and admit that nobody wants to confiscate their precious lethal weapons, just maybe we can implement meaningful and reasonable gun control measures as laid out in the 2016 Democratic Platform. These measures include: universal and broadened background checks, registration, safe storage, restricted public carry, funding for gun violence research, and strict enforcement of ALL gun laws.
But I seriously doubt that the right-wing gun culture will agree to any measures that can be seen as "gun control" because they are indeed absolutists. It will take a Liberal SCOTUS to further refine Heller, and to bring the Second Amendment into the present, and for our children, a future without the fear of gun violence.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
