1207
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

The Forefathers didn't come close to living up to their own words. We are still striving to meet them hundreds of years later. It's a good goal.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 8 months 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 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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 11 points 8 months 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 5 points 8 months 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 8 points 8 months 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 5 points 8 months ago

The "well regulated" portion seems to enjoy being ignored still.

[-] crunchyoutside@kbin.social 1 points 8 months 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.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

"well-regulated" does not mean what you think it means.

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Of course... it means whatever someone needs it to mean.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago
[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

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

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

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

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Not sure where I said the constitution should be ignored. Quite the opposite. It should be followed but hasn't been followed since the beginning with the forefathers. I said it's a "good goal". I guess we are both arguing the same point on the same side.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Probably. I was addressing the general conversations in this thread more than you specifically.

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
1207 points (90.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

4751 readers
3878 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS