The 2nd amendment is worded: "...the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"
Should the meaning of the word "arms" be taken to mean what it meant at the time the amendment was written or should it be interpreted with the modern meaning that changes over time?
The word "arms" at the time was written referred to simple single shot weapons. This is clearly the meaning the authors intended. The current meaning of the word "arms" can refer to anything from simple single shot weapons to machine guns to heavy artillery, to nuclear warhead.
If the original meaning is taken, then only simple single shot weapons should be protected by the 2nd amendment.
If the modern meaning is taken, then why does the 2nd amendment not protect the right of the people to keep and bare nuclear arms?
>that pic Nigger, you have no idea what a musket ball does to the human body
Josiah James
You know this is a classically stupid argument, right? Are you really this dumb? Please help me not believe that there is someone out there as dumb as you. Please walk out into the bush and die already dummy.
if thats the case then how come we cant own anything above 99 caliber without it being considered a destructive weapon and needing to jump even more loops? even if it is a powdered keg that was used in the 1800s?
Cameron Wilson
Its none of your business you vice news cuck, piss off
Brandon Lewis
>Should the meaning of the word "arms" be taken to mean what it meant at the time the amendment was written or should it be interpreted with the modern meaning that changes over time?
It has the same definition now as it did then.
Levi Williams
see nigger
Benjamin Robinson
yes. good luck getting one though.
Gabriel White
apply your faggotry to other amendments tard
Hudson Nguyen
Notice I didn't argue either way for gun ownership. I am pointing out that either only muskets are protected or all arms are protected depending on the interpretation of the word "arms" Show why I am wrong shitsmear
John Nguyen
Certainly, as well as artillery, battleships, tanks, aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, etc. Their protected ownership would not negate the many, many existing laws barring murder and offensive uses of deadly weapons.
Hudson Collins
gay
Grayson Howard
Why the fuck is it any of your business Auz? Last I checked the 2nd ammendment wasn't in your shit show of a "country." so kindly, fuck off, mate.
founders owned private cannon and warship they meant all arms
Austin Reyes
all arms are protected. why the hell would it only mean arms from the year the constitution was written. major improvements happened in some of the founding fathers lives. ie repeating rifles. they were open to the improvement of firearms. also they were open to private anti piracy frigates. wheres muh private missile destroyer at.
Lincoln Bennett
I have guns and you can't take them. Isn't that neat?
David Butler
Fine, but the government has to give up its tanks drones and automatics as well. Remember Communists will all hang come the war, be safe OP.
Jacob Price
I should have posted at a time when amerifags were asleep — would have gotten a less retarded response.
Gavin Thompson
Save up. 2a doesn't mean gubmint arms handout.
Cameron Barnes
problem is the companies can only sell to the gov and other govs that are approved. maybe some old soviet shit.
Sure. Fine by me. But only if you also put the same restrictions on the military and police.
Liam Martin
Listen, I see you glowniggers have something big planned. Could you hold off your false flag until I get up tomorrow? Like around 130 in the afternoon, central time? I've seen tons of these anti 2nd amendment threads and I'm asking for just this one thing. Pretty please, just this once?
Lets get real for a second OP. You've clearly made quite a few of these threads so this is something very important to you. What do you want to see as far as Australian laws on this topic?
There's talk of some new weapons restrictions coming in. Your thoughts?
Ryder Clark
...
Noah Powell
bears
Hudson Smith
>The word "arms" at the time was written referred to simple single shot weapons. Artillery and prototype machine guns were already prominent in that time period. seefor a revolving repeating fire gun, with a blistering fire rate of 9 per minute compared to the muskets average of 2. Both were the latest in military technology.
In no way did the seconds amendment prevent either of those. meanwhile we are still incapable of owning equivalent level tech as our military. Most available is ww2-cold war era. We are already more restricted than they were when the second amendment was thought up.
Samuel Russell
You're a big xir
Jackson Carter
>The word "arms" at the time was written referred to simple single shot weapons. This is clearly the meaning the authors intended. The current meaning of the word "arms" can refer to anything from simple single shot weapons to machine guns to heavy artillery, to nuclear warhead. No because they could have easily said muskets, you fucking retard.
Some other retards also claim that "people" referred to the "states". No, retard. They would just have used the word "state".
Benjamin Perry
Same as their average IQ and the amount of teeth in their head. 7.
Charles Smith
They meant literally bear arms. Like the arms of a bear.
Levi Ramirez
>yea and look at the MASS "audience" the internet reaches too. Only the gubmint should be allowed to do propoganda >weres my shekels reeeeee something something throws u under a bus
If it wasnt for the millions of armed Americans China or Russia would easily invade. Its important to have armed citizens to repel invasions, insurrections and maintain domestic tranquility. 2ND means firearms. There should be NO magazine restrictions, no stock restrictions. Hey the 1st protects your modern computer and TV.
Jacob Johnson
Why is an Australian trying to tell Americans how to interpret our Constitution? What we should really be talking about is common sense nigger control laws
Isaac Butler
the whole point of the document was to place limits on government with the knowledge that government always grows and always becomes tyrannical - that is why reps swear an oath to uphold the constitution first and foremost (then ignore their oath)
government should not have special privileges above citizens such as exclusive access to defensive techniques. if they have lazer canon, we have lazer canon.
governments always become parasitic and oppressive with time - the USA experiment was to see how long that could be abated
Carter Barnes
there's no reason for China or Russia to invade at this point, we should be more worried about our own government.
Nicholas White
Considering it was made for citizens to fight against a tyrannical government if necessary to secure their freedom, one should expect that citizens should, by the spirit of the law, be allowed to own military grade weapons, munitions, and vehicles to combat those of a standing army moving against its own people. Rather than restrict weapon ownership, it should be vastly expanded.
Colton Thompson
Only because literally everyone had single shot weapons you retard. They were useful to defend yourself.
Isaac Roberts
The purpose of the amendment was for the citizens to have a means of insurrection against a potential tyrannical government. Single shot weapons aren't powerful enough anymore to achieve that, but nukes would be overkill.
Matthew Peterson
You're not even American, your opinion is irrelevant.
Bentley Cooper
>The word "arms" at the time was written referred to simple single shot weapons. This is clearly the meaning the authors intended. The current meaning of the word "arms" can refer to anything from simple single shot weapons to machine guns to heavy artillery, to nuclear warhead. Whatever the government has, i shall also have
Kevin Wright
one does not simply manufacture cool shit like that
Isaiah Sullivan
your premise is retarded. >If the modern meaning is taken, then why does the 2nd amendment not protect the right of the people to keep and bare nuclear arms? it should. they're cost prohibitive anyway; no one on this board could afford one.
Noah Barnes
Nice history lesson, shit I didn't know. I can see why Yanks fucked off in 1776 having looked up most of this with it being true.
>why does the 2nd amendment not protect the right of the people to keep and bare nuclear arms? it unironically does, but good luck affording a bunch of scientists, engineers, and more to maintain that shit for you.
Mason Johnson
>this is clearly the meaning the authors intended show me the time machine you used to ask them or i call bullshit
Easton Miller
Underrated lmfao
Christian Powell
this amendment bullshit means nothing, the usa already has gun control laws so its kindretarded to debate this
extreme libs want to be like the uk where you have to register to get a fucking kitchen knife and the extreme reps want it to be like afganistan where all guns with all sorts of ways to kill to be allowed
they just need to make it like australia's, limited but there are still guns
few guns better than no guns
Brody Cox
>The word arms at the time was written to refer to blah blah bullshit excuses
If this bullshit were true then free speech wouldn't apply to the internet. It's always been a nonsense cop-out
And yes, if people have the resources to obtain nuclear armaments then it is theoretically a violation of the second amendment to prevent them from doing so. It's a moot point, though, because nuclear weaponry is horribly impractical and vastly resource intensive.
Parker Thompson
This isn't a remotely good argument since no other portion of the Bill of Rights was dependent on the era in which it was written. If you anything about the early enlightenment ideals with which it was composed, you'd realize that these statutes were meant to be eternal. It took no longer than a few decades to see how a lack of rights destroyed much of Europe.
William Hill
go back to the usa military guy stop larping as afghani
Aiden Phillips
Same way first ammendment only applies to the printing press
Dylan Nguyen
>50 cal pellet usually survivable at close range
Grayson Morales
When the 2nd amendment was written, swords were still around on the battlefield. I think the founding fathers understood that technology advances over time. They weren't complete retards in other words...
Aiden Allen
Australians please don't opine on this. Cucking on guns is the only thing I can't respect about you guys. There's literally letters in which the founding fathers are encouraging private individuals to purchase literal cannons and early stage mechanized rifles, so it's pretty clear they were fine with real weapons too.
Alexander Reyes
kek
Isaac Myers
>223967323 Hey asshole. It would be clearly mentioned. It is written is a timeless manner and they had automatic guns too back then
Zachary Walker
And every standing army in the West at that time was using muskets too.
So what you are saying is that the founding fathers enshrined in the bill of rights our right to own the same exact type of firearms used by the military. Ok, thanks.
The founders meant all arms. And more specifically, the 2A was written to ensure that the populace had the same weapons as the state, why do you think they would fight a civil war using the most modern weapons available and then decide that the civilian population can only use weapons from 200 years ago? The civil war wasnt won with crossbows.
Luke Flores
When the founding fathers wrote "arms" that included cannons and the battleships that carried them.
There were close to 100x more privateers than there were government owned ships during the revolutionary war. It was common for men who privately owned ships to sail out, destroy and/or capture british ships, and then be gifted those ships they captured by Washington (General at the time).
When they wrote the second amendment, they felt that this was just and good and necessary to defend the republic. The point of the second amendment is that they truly believed the people should have all the military hardware needed to overthrow the government if that became needed. Because in their day, people did, and people had to.
Until private USA citizens are allowed to own battleships complete with modern arsenals, sail them out to say, africa, and capture pirates boats and then be gifted those boats by the president, then you could honestly argue that we're already behind what the founding fathers thought as normal.
Charles Butler
Retard OP these arms they referenced were also the same used by the military. Retarded OP who made a slide thread because he's a jew. Let's all think about how we will execute OP in the day of the rope !
Luis Robinson
I hope this is a lamp/shillpost, otherwise you're unironically retarded and are talking out of your ass about something that you know nothing about Arms have always referred to weapons Arms has NEVER just meant "muskets" Arms encompasses any material used for war fighting. This included cannons and associated technologies. Also the idea that a .70 lead ball is hardly lethal...
>"arms referred to single shot weapons because that's waht was common at the time"
that is completely wrong. the intent was clearly stated by the men who wrote it. it meant "weapons equal to the military arsenal" otherwise it would have made no sense in the context it was written... to combat tyrannical government.
CHECKMATE
Isaac Martin
Only the printing press and ink quills were available when the 1st amendment was written. Founding fathers didn't mean for you to use electronic communication. Get off you electronic device.
>at the time was written referred to simple single shot weapons
Nope, even warships were covered under the 2nd amendment, *at the time*.
More importantly though, it supposedly "covered" muskets because that's the weapon of war at the time, that's what government forces would use, muskets, so that's what it ensured people would have access to. It's intended for proportionality to the arms of government, the weapon of war now are things like assault rifles so that's what the 2nd amendment is ensuring people hace access to.
In theory, because the government has nukes, by the 2nd amendment I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to own nukes as a civilian in order to be able to counter the government if need be. I suppose there would just be some case to be made that nukes are "weapons of mass destruction" and/or are not the typical weapons of war in this day and age.
Either way though, things like assault rifles are not weapons of mass destruction, and are the current weapons of war. If laser guns are invented and replace guns as the default weapon of armies, then the 2nd amendment should ensure civilians can also own laser guns.
Daniel Ortiz
I love how a retarded Aussie tries to put his own retarded opinion on here.... like he knows what it means even more than the people who fucking wrote it. They debated the wording for 3 months before writing it. They explained exactly what it fucking meant, and no, it doesn’t mean what you’re retarded brain thinks it means.
Oh cool, then i can also have cannons and bombs right? Those existed at the time. I can also conceal carry pocket pistols. A whole civilian ship armed with cannons too, neat! Thanks OP!
Jack Wilson
Muskets were what soldiers had too. The people must be able to keep and bare the same level of technology that would be used against them by the state. That's the entire point.
