Post by oldhippy on Sept 2, 2018 14:28:39 GMT
When the U.S. Second Amendment was written there were no semi-automatic rifles, then why should these be covered by the Constitution?
Because it's completely irrelevant what weapons existed when the Second Amendment was written.
You seem to have a common misconception, namely: the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment because they knew that muskets couldn't cause much damage. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
First you must understand that before gun-control, there was simply weapon-control. A peasant who owned a crossbow in medieval times would likely be suspected of planning something heinous. The longbow would suffice for hunting, a crossbow was an instrument of war designed to pierce plate armor.
In Germany laws which banned civilians from carrying swords were once bypassed with the invention of the “messer”. It was technically a knife because the tang was covered by two pieces of wood, rather than a whole hilt like in a sword. Oh and it only had one sharpened edge, so obviously it wasn't an assault sword. Because the king could not trust his peasant subjects with proper swords, they were forced to carry elongated knifes.
In Japan anyone who was not a samurai was prohibited from carrying swords. To this day swords are heavily regulated in Japan, nearly as much as firearms. This is a long held tradition that began in the late 16th century when the newly established regime decided to organize a “sword hunt” which disarmed all the civilians, as well as the samurais who “weren't on the right side of history.”
The founding fathers were well aware of the various laws which restricted the people's right to bear arms. They recognized that all of these laws existed to control the populace, to suppress the chance of an uprising. The flintlock pistol, the musket, the rudimentary repeating rifle, those were the most dangerous weapons that they were aware of. They decided that in the interest of averting tyranny, the people must have a right to these dangerous weapons.
The Second Amendment was a way of placing power into the hands of the people, the more power the better.
There is not a single good argument for semi-automatic (nor indeed fully automatic) weapons not being protected by the constitution.
Because it's completely irrelevant what weapons existed when the Second Amendment was written.
You seem to have a common misconception, namely: the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment because they knew that muskets couldn't cause much damage. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
First you must understand that before gun-control, there was simply weapon-control. A peasant who owned a crossbow in medieval times would likely be suspected of planning something heinous. The longbow would suffice for hunting, a crossbow was an instrument of war designed to pierce plate armor.
In Germany laws which banned civilians from carrying swords were once bypassed with the invention of the “messer”. It was technically a knife because the tang was covered by two pieces of wood, rather than a whole hilt like in a sword. Oh and it only had one sharpened edge, so obviously it wasn't an assault sword. Because the king could not trust his peasant subjects with proper swords, they were forced to carry elongated knifes.
In Japan anyone who was not a samurai was prohibited from carrying swords. To this day swords are heavily regulated in Japan, nearly as much as firearms. This is a long held tradition that began in the late 16th century when the newly established regime decided to organize a “sword hunt” which disarmed all the civilians, as well as the samurais who “weren't on the right side of history.”
The founding fathers were well aware of the various laws which restricted the people's right to bear arms. They recognized that all of these laws existed to control the populace, to suppress the chance of an uprising. The flintlock pistol, the musket, the rudimentary repeating rifle, those were the most dangerous weapons that they were aware of. They decided that in the interest of averting tyranny, the people must have a right to these dangerous weapons.
The Second Amendment was a way of placing power into the hands of the people, the more power the better.
There is not a single good argument for semi-automatic (nor indeed fully automatic) weapons not being protected by the constitution.