• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Equally however a lot of that stipulations make no sense.

    For example the gun laws were developed back when firing a shot required about a 45-minute reload session. I somehow doubt that automatic rifles were predicted and considered.

    I highly suspect they thought that the American people would be intelligent enough to make their own constitution when the current one became invalid, sadly not.

    • Patches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Just as the founding fathers intended

      Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended

    • VegaLyrae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to say that the 2nd amendment, as written, isn’t totally wild.

      However I do want to mention that the Continental congress was petitioned by John Belton in 1777 to purchase his 16-shot musket. It also had a not-quite-magazine that could be replaced very quickly. The 16 shots could be fired as quickly as the user could pull the triggers (yes it had multiple).

      Given this, it seems likely that the people writing the constitution ten years later had some idea of rapid fire weaponry.

      Just 20 years after that, they sent Lewis and Clarke expedition out with a relatively rapid firing airgun.

      It is reasonable to say that rapid fire weaponry was contemporaneous to the constitution writing era.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was going to essentially say this same thing so I’ll just add there was also the Chambers ‘machine gun’ a flintlock naval gun able of firing 224 shots @ ~120 rounds per minute.

        The technology we associate with periods of time isn’t reflective of the peak of technology but more often the median. In the last army rifle trials a company was trying to get a rifle with caseless ammunition in service. That technology has been around since the 1850s and still hasn’t been adopted by anyone despite it’s obvious advantages.

    • Montagge@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They were also written with the idea that the US wouldn’t have a standing army, but would instead rely on volunteers. You need to have your volunteers armed and at least somewhat proficient with a firearm.

      Of course that’s also how you get the war of 1812 lol.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “well regulated” portion seems to enjoy being ignored still.

      • crunchyoutside@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - the US Supreme Court decided that the Founding Fathers put that “well-regulated militia” bit in as a joke nvm.

            • nexguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Of course it is. 14th amendment has been twisted to meet one’s needs as well.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you want to live in alternate facts land, Fox News is over there - - - - - - - - - - - >

                • nexguy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s my point exactly. Conservatives have manipulated the constitution to match their needs. Have they not?

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Everyone attempts that. We need to stop letting them get away with it, not do away with the concept of the Constitution.