Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Advancment of Guns and the 2nd Amendment
  • Subject: Advancment of Guns and the 2nd Amendment
Subject: Advancment of Guns and the 2nd Amendment

Lets Boogie

So i have noticed that some people opposed to the 2nd Amendment, say that the founding fathers were only thinking about one-shot, musket/rifle weapons, when they wanted the common man to be able to own a firearm.

And that because guns have become more advanced/dangerous, that the amendment should be changed/abolished, because the reality of present day guns is not the same as it was in the 18th century.

However, couldn't it be said that the founding fathers were aware of the possible future existence of more advanced firearms? And expected the 2nd amendment to support those future guns as well?

After all, even in the 18th century, guns had advanced from previous designs. In the 1700's they had flintlock weapons, an advancement from the Matchlock and Wheellock firearms.

Also it would be pretty stupid to think that the founding fathers thought gun tech would remain the same throughout the future of USA/Mankind.

Remember that the entire Constitution was made in a way that could last a long time, even through changes in society/technology.

So once again, do you think that the advancement of firearms somehow makes the 2nd amendment less valid?

[Edited on 12.16.2012 2:01 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 2:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Co M4N
  • user homepage:

Get ready for it op.

  • 12.16.2012 2:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Nope, I don't think so. The flintlock musket was the standard military weapon at the time. The semiautomatic rifle is the standard military weapon in our time.

It makes sense, people. Countries like the Czech Republic permit assault rifles, and they don't have our gun-violence issues. The recent epidemic of shootings is largely due to an utter failure of our mental health system, and the declining and decadent culture prevalent in most urban/Northern/liberal communities.

We didn't have this in the 1960s. Civilian-spec firearms in the 1960s weren't a whole lot different than they are now.

  • 12.16.2012 3:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Its a 200 year old law. And the founding fathers did not anticipate that it would cause school shootings. The only people who are against adapting the law to modern times. Are the ones who want tradition for some weird reason

  • 12.16.2012 3:13 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Koolen
  • user homepage:

O o
/¯_____________________
| BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!
\_¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ;¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯

Because 'murrica

  • 12.16.2012 3:13 PM PDT

"You are the last of your kind: bred for combat, built for war. You're the master of any weapon, pilot of any vehicle, and fear no enemy"

I hope your body is ready.

  • 12.16.2012 3:13 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: haloplayer2kill
So once again, do you think that the advancement of firearms somehow makes the 2nd amendment less valid?
Not all.

The only real exception to this is nukes and other extremely large explosives; it's impossible to use such weapons without harming others.

  • 12.16.2012 3:14 PM PDT

OK, so this is gun thread, what, 400? In under 48 hours?

Well done Flood. Well done.

OT: Assault weapons were not foreseen by the founding fathers. Sorry, but they need to go. Last I checked, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.

  • 12.16.2012 3:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Ex0 Dante
OK, so this is gun thread, what, 400? In under 48 hours?

Well done Flood. Well done.

OT: Assault weapons were not foreseen by the founding fathers. Sorry, but they need to go. Last I checked, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.
assault weapon =/= assault rifle

  • 12.16.2012 3:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Ex0 Dante
Assault weapons

Inb4 -blam!-storm

  • 12.16.2012 3:16 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Ex0 Dante
OT: Assault weapons were not foreseen by the founding fathers.
So?

And could you please define what an "assault weapon" is?
Posted by: Ex0 Dante
Sorry, but they need to go.
Why?
Posted by: Ex0 Dante
Last I checked, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.
Irrelevant.

  • 12.16.2012 3:18 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Aythor
Don't see why Americans have a total hard-on for the constitution, yes it's a good document, but it isn't flawless.
The Constitution is both the framework of our government and the thing that restricts it from becoming an out-of-control tyranny. And the Founders knew it wasn't perfect; that's why they included an amendment process.
Posted by: Aythor
Not to mention it was written by slave-owners.
Irrelevant. The sections regarding slavery and equal rights have been amended.

  • 12.16.2012 3:20 PM PDT


Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Ex0 Dante
OT: Assault weapons were not foreseen by the founding fathers.
So?

And could you please define what an "assault weapon" is?
Posted by: Ex0 Dante
Sorry, but they need to go.
Why?
Posted by: Ex0 Dante
Last I checked, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.
Irrelevant.


Seems I struck a chord with you. Good.

Nothing is irrelevant in this conversation. You tell me why the hell you need an AR-15. Please. I'd love to hear it.

Assault weapon is defined as "...designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range" Source (inb4lolWikiSource) If the founding fathers could've seen into the future, I'm sure their tune would change. Real quick.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 3:21 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 3:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Does anybody actually think something will change because of this shooting? whether that means stricter or more relaxed gun laws? or will it take more shootings?

  • 12.16.2012 3:25 PM PDT