Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

"Mobs Do Not Rush Across Town to Do Good Deeds." -- James Lee Burke

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Dear Free Press: You're Proving Too Much

Guns Shoot 200 Times Faster Than At The Time Of The 2nd Amendment

Did the Founding Fathers have these kind of civilian killing machines in mind back in 1791?

As after any major shooting incident, the Second Amendment to America’s constitution is once again the subject of a major national debate. The amendment, which famously guarantees your right to “keep and bear arms,” was penned in 1791 by our Founding Fathers, who—after being routinely disarmed by the English in the 18th century—wanted to prevent more federal government encroachment. At the time, it was immensely sensible.

Now, more than 200 years later, the world certainly has changed. But questioning the wisdom of that amendment is political sacrilege, no matter which side of the spectrum you’re on.

The rifle of choice back in the late 18th century was the Brown Bess, a flintlock musket that was widely used by both sides during the American Revolutionary War. It wasn’t the most efficient weapon; a trained marksman could fire about four bullets a minute and had to manually reload after each shot. Essentially, if someone missed on their first shot, you had an opportunity to escape—or even run up to your attacker and punch him in the face.
The argument proves too much. If the argument is that the Constitution applies to technologies that existed when the Constitution (or its relevant amendment) was adopted, then guess what does not qualify for constitutional protection under the free press provision of the First Amendment?

The answer is: Everything.

Unless you are reading the news on a newspaper that was printed with hand-set type on hand-made paper by the use of a Franklin-style printing press (or you heard about it from the Town Crier), you are getting your news and such by methods that didn't exist in 1791. By the argument of Mr. Ryan Beckler, only those two methods of news delivery qualify for constitutional protection.

So if Congress wanted to forbid the use of glossy paper or rotary presses or ban radio/television/cable/Internet, they're free to do that.

Which is an argument that should give President Trump a hard-on, because that's pretty much what he'd like to do.


w3ski said...

I have seen so much hoopla lately about 'rate of fire' too. You'd think the AR rifle was made by GE and had a truck full of ammo every time.

steeve said...

It's not about the tech, it's that the second amendment is already null and void. We infringe on people's rights to own grenades, surface to air missiles, and nukes. Everyone, even the NRA and the most strident constitutionalist, agrees to this.

Now that the second amendment is dead, we can talk sanely about what kind of society we want to live in.

Linus Bern said...

So basically, you are saying the constitution as written means you have the right to own any weapon whatsoever including surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons, as well as automatic weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds a minute.

Maybe it is time to change the fucking second amendment.

MJ said...

They do forget the 'well regulated militia' part in focusing on the arms available at the time. And that well regulated militia was instead of a standing army, like the British one that they were about to go up against, the one they thought was such a dangerous tool if it came under the command of tyrants.

Comrade Misfit said...

The miltia, as seen in the 18th century, was to ensure that the states and the people had to resist tyranny. The National Guard is not the militia, for it can be federalized at the drop of a hat.