"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 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assaukt weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief.
I am not sure why everyone believes this, because it is completely untrue.
During the time that the constitution was written, 30 round semi automatic assault rifles had existed for around ~100 years.
Yes they did. Really.
Check out the Kalthoff repeater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
It was an up to 30 round semi automatic assault rifle, invented in the 1600s.
Now, it wasn't used a whole lot, because it was fairly expensive and also wasn't mass produced (Although it WAS actually used in a couple conflicts, by specialized forces!). But to claim that such things were "almost beyond belief" is ridiculous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater
I didn't know about those weapons and they're impressive (though very rare). But, there's still a huge leap between a Kalthoff/Cookson repeater and an AR-15. According to that weapon's manufacturer, an AR-15 has a 30 round magazine and can shoot 45 rounds a minute up to 1/3 of a mile!
The modern day bullets are the things that have caused the massive increase in accuracy, energy, and range.
And I guess, also decreasing prices, and reliability.
It is perhaps possible to make a reasoned argument around THAT, but the arguments around guns rarely reach the point beyond "ban the guns that look scary".
I'd argue that the same kind of logic should apply to weapons like the AR-15. An accessible, reliable, fully dangerous weapon like the AR-15 is so far beyond the 'arms' of the 1790s that the right to bear it could be infringed.
A gun in the hands of a qualified, reasonable person is a legitimate means of self defence, but I can't think of why that should apply to something like an AR-15, which is built to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Qualified, reasonable people have many, better options to protect themselves from the threats they'd reasonably face that can't so easily be perverted by deranged fucks.
If AR-15 style weapons, which use .223 cartridges, were banned, that would still leave sporting rifles, which use the larger and more powerful .308 cartridge. That cartridge was the size used in the battle rifles of the WWI / WWII era that were standard before the evolution of the assault rifle. (Assault rifles have smaller cartridges because the range and power of the standard battle rifle cartridge was found to be unnecessary and the smaller cartridges allowed soldiers to carry a larger quantity.)
Given that, it's hard to see how an AR-15 ban is anything other than a cosmetic ban.
The 2nd amendment is a principle, not a law. It’s a universal, in time and space, foundation upon which we base our laws. The Founders were well aware of this and it actually was their intention.
These were highly educated enlightenment thinkers, to assume they didn’t foresee weapon innovation is just silly.
That's not comparable.
If I understand correctly, the legal controversy behind the 2nd amendment has more to do with the bit about "well regulated militias" than with gun technology.
The internet gives the average person the ability to mass disseminate information. If you want to try and use that as a metaphor then we should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction.
Well, there is no definition for the term "assault weapon", and semi-automatic (edit: not semi-automatic, but self-cocking repeating, similar operation and results) weapons were well known (and not that far away from being popularized) by the time the second amendment was drafted, and by the people who were drafting it. "Arms" also encompassed things like cannons and explosive charges, which could be fitted freely to ships/properties and stored (though the latter could create a tort, if you don't take necessary precautions) by private persons, as proven in case law.
It also applied to bladed, blunt, or more unconventional arms. The word "arms" is used instead of "muskets" because the right being protected is the right of the people to own arms sufficient to feasibly defend themselves (or, with a militia, defend their community), and to do so unmolested.
I think I'm wrong in calling them semi-automatic then, but there is little practical difference between DA revolvers and semi-automatic firearms, except that one has a chamber for each cartridge. The Kalthoff mechanism is a bit more confusing with these definitions, since it uses a single chamber, but has separate magazines for charge and bullet, but reloads, cocks, and fires through a single manual action. I should probably have said self-cocking repeaters.
Projectile weapons have been improving throughout history, it’s silly to assume the Founders weren’t well aware of that. I mean, there were medieval weapons that were pretty devastating by even today’s standards and the first amendment makes no mention of that. These were enlightenment thinkers well versed in the history of governments and technological progress.
The 2nd amendment is a principle meant to transcend all time and cultures. The people have a fundamental right to defend their rights.
Threatening violence or slander has nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment says nothing about “fake” or “real” news even though there was plenty of fake news in those days. I could argue fake news started the French Revolution.
You can use a printing press to inform thousands and thousands of people a day easily.
Get rid of the 2nd amendment!
Second amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary [predicate] .... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Your analogy kind of fails and also isn’t really related to the article, TBH.
Only hand cranked printing press manufactured leaflets should be allowed. Freedom of the press should be banned for all other mediums.
... and in case you're wondering, yes, this is a metaphor for another on-going debate and an apt one.