A friend on Facebook keeps posting anti-gun pics, so when he posted this one this was my response:
Read and study the period and you'll understand what the Second Amendment actually means.
Sure, the only ranged firearms they had back them were musketballs but the Founding Fathers weren't ignorant of the concept of the development of technology. Even during their lifetimes firearms technology advanced considerably in comparison with earlier firearms technology.
Keep in mind that "modern" firearms had already been around for well over 250 years when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified.
And cartridges for fast loading were developed and used as far back as the late 1500's. Not everyone had slow-loading muskets regardless of how Hollywood chooses to present the past in their films and TV shows.
Wheel-locks, Fire-locks, match-locks, snap-locks, flint-locks, snaphance, miquelet-lock (these are just the more common ones used) had already been around for hundreds of years so the concept of advancement of armaments wasn't alien to them.
That's why it says "Arms" and not "Muskets". Arms being defined as weapons, ANY weapons not just the ones they used at the time.
The intent being that they believed an individual is allowed; or has a duty to, take personal responsibility for their own and others protection and lives if need be from anyone intending to do harm, be it a person or government (foreign or domestic).
So yes, the Founding Fathers did intend the Second Amendment to include modern arms which would include the "not an assault rifle" civilian-version of the AR-15.
![184[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WKuOHyd.jpg "184[1].jpg")
>>77755816
>so when he posted this one this was my response
I'm sorry, who asked? no one really cares what you said in an internet fight my man
>>77756005
Interesting how the pic you posted applies to you.
>>77755816
Which was the same weaponry owned by the government. We the people will decide what weapons they government may own. We are the master, and created government as our servant. Did they anticipate computers and the internet, where world class stupidity like that of op could be spread to millions of people in seconds? Do you think that freedom od the press means that all writing should be done by quill and parchment, and in letters transported in horse drawn carts, or sailing vessels crossing the atlantic?
>>77756251
Holy shit you're a faggot.
>>77756321
They just cry, "BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME" and fuck off to perpetuate this nonsense.
>>77756321
You do realize that post is a pro-gun post right?
What they were talking about was allowing people the right to bear arms to form a militia.
That implies that say, the average person shouldn't be able to own something too rediculous because militias usually don't have an armored devision.
Militias back in the day would use muskets, but nowadays it's hard to argue they wouldn't use fully automatic small arms. If anything the 2nd amendment has already been restricted beyond it's original intent.
But really I think the absolute best thing to do is not to argue this, but point out that automatic weapons are already banned and the Orlando shooter used a semi-automatic weapon that couldn't possibly fire that fast. Her argument, above all, is irrelevant.
>>77755816
>hurr muh muskets!
This is the most retarded argument ever. Like the founding fathers thought "WELL THATS IT! WEAPONS WILL NEVER GET MORE ADVANCED THAN THIS!"
first amendment: we were talking about quill and parchment, not devices that allow any idiot to spread dangerous speech across the entire globe faster than the fastest bullet can travel.
>>77756645
>What they were talking about was allowing people the right to bear arms to form a militia
Wrong. The militia is pertinent to a free state, not the right to bear arms.
>>77755816
Pucker guns existed
Hell, Da Vinci had early blueprint ideas for machine guns
You can't tell me the Framers had no fucking clue faster guns would exist.
>NO CIVILIANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS THEY'RE BAD M'KAY
>THE POLICE ARE MURDEROUS RACISTS AND WE NEED TO FIGHT BACK
>WE NEED TO BE MORE LIKE EUROPE
>
>>77755816
The founding fathers practiced architecture as a fucking hobby. I think they were smart enough to understand that firearms technology would evolve over time.
>>77755816
>muskets are never mentioned
>they also had cannons etc.
you're a retarded faggot
>>77756926
Read it again, that was the whole point of the argument, that they knew technology would advance and the 2nd Amendment doesn't only apply to muskets.
>>77755816
When he replies with his snooty 'enlightenment' you should respond with, "The Founders meant for the 2nd amendment to serve as protections for the states and people against a tyrannical federal government. That's what the 'security of a free state' is all about. They meant for the 'militia' (the people themselves) to be armed with weapons comparable to what they would be facing against a tyrannical threat. There are shockingly few explicit mentions of the 'people' in the entire Constitution. Every explicit mention of the 'people' is meant to codify an individual right. The 2nd amendment protects an individual right that MAY be exercised in a collective manner, namely though not exclusively, as part of an old-school late-19th century militia."
Law can occasionally become archaic. No legal scholar or lawyer will deny that. However, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is clear. It's not about hunting.
>>77757494
Read it again, it was an argument stating the they DID NOT just mean muskets.
>>77757698
>I think they were smart enough to understand that firearms technology would evolve over time.
Exactly my point, which is what I stated in teh post.
You'd know that if you had read it.
>>77757561
Please don't. There is no light at the end of that tunnel.
Only darkness and hairy arms
>>77758063
There is a reason about 19 states have the right to hunt in their constitutions.
>>77755816
Pro tip, 13.5 rounds a seconds is the full auto cyclic rate of an AR15, which is 800 rounds a minute or so. That would make it a class 3 weapon, which have never been used in a mass shooting. The real fire rate of these weapons is 3 to 4 rounds a second limited to the rate of trigger pull.
I've discovered well sourced, respectfully toned technical responses have the best effect this season against gun grabbers.
>>77758172
>darkness and hairy arms
i came
>>77758651
No one should be able to kill 3 to 4 people a second!
>>77755816
During Washington's time, and after, private citizens owned fully functional and fully armed warships which were the nuclear weapons of the time .
>>77755816
>So yes, the Founding Fathers did intend the Second Amendment to include modern arms which would include the "not an assault rifle" civilian-version of the AR-15.
No. You are making a supposition on history without being there.
Argument dismissed. NEXT!
>>77759895
No, I'm making an educated guess based off common sense and research.
Which is more than anti-gun nuts base their opinions on.
>>77756926
The founding fathers said you could have slaves. That's been changed, so..............
>>77757899
This. Cannon was the winner of most battles. Muskets were unreliable as fuck and often single fire. (then bayonets and "Charge!")
>>77759670
You couldn't take them into a crowded school, party or bar.
I refuse to believe that the Founding Fathers were shortsighted enough to assume that weaponry would somehow stagnate in tech and we would be using muskets and swords until the end of time.
Either way, it doesn't matter because they're fucking dead.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77760096
>educated guess
Sure you are.
>>77758807
you could kill 3-4 people in a second with a katakana or a very sharp blade.
>>77755816
ask for a citation about that because during the 1780's existed a lot of weapons that were not "muskets". ask your friends where they get their ideas because these are incredibly poor arguments to be made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
many of these weapons were not available to the military of the united states but were used by regular people "the air gun famously being used in the Lewis and Clark expedition" Tell your friend to present an actual argument that addresses issues and presents solutions that are not from fantasy instead of posting shitty pictures.
Just ask him if we outlaw guns, how will we protect ourselves. Wait for him to say the cops, and then call him a racist for wanting to take away the ability for black youth to defend themselves from a facist police state that's hell bent on murdering them in the streets.
You can't argue with liberals. You just have to out social justice them till their brain breaks
>>77760468
We'll have to ban those too. Japan passed the Haitōrei Edict in 1876. It's 2016!
Japanese Culture is so advanced :3
>>77755816
>no mention of the puckle-gun
>no mention that citizens owned fucking CANNONS with no registration and other legal bullshit
You fucked up OP.
>>77755816
FOR FUCKS SAKE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HAND WRITTEN LETTERS AND PRINTING PRESSES...
NOT FILM, COMPUTERS, AND DIGITAL MEDIA
>>77755816
SHALL
Tell him the first amendment only applies to quill and paper.
>>77755816
There were semi automatic rifles, revolver based repeating mounted guns back in those days
>>77755816
Civilians could own cannons, warships, war horses, or whathaveyou back when that was written.
If someone claims "they only meant equivalent things to what someone could own back then" just tell them that means you would be able to own and arm a tank, armored vehicle, jet fighter, bomber, or battleship currently (Note: you can own a tank but you cannot arm it nor drive it on roads, afaik; no idea about the others).
>>77760699
FOR FUCKS SAKE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WRITING COMMENTS IN THE NEWSPAPERS
NOT ON INTERNET MESSAGE BOARDS
>>77755816
Pretty smarmy, greasy post there.
Pls no wheedle.
>>77755816
ask him what he would do if Trump led a violent Fascist campaign once he was democratically elected.
>>77760924
Only a newspaper editor has the judgement to determine what gets published for mass viewing.
>>77760845
This. Compared to 24 hour news and internet.
>>77755816
>using faceberg
kill yourself
>>77758599
Exactly. That was a right, separate from the 2nd amendment, which those states felt compelled to protect.
>>77755816
>arguing on facebook
>almost as retarded as arguing irl
Kill yo self op
>>77755816
post this ebin meme
>>77760880
>You will never own a Frigate and lay waste to the enemies of the United States at sea
dem Master & Commander feels.
>>77756005
yeah sure buddy even though you care.
>>77755816
You forgot to mention the air rifle that shoots 30 rounds that the continental army considered purchasing but it was too expensive. I forget the name of it. So 30 round rifles were available back then and didn't affect the 2nd amendment language.
>>77758019
>>77758084
>>77758148
OP gettin mad when people agree with him
>>77755816
you should have just pointed to the existence of the puckle gun and whatever that rifle with a 20 round internal magazine was
and then ask why he would take the founding fathers for a bunch of idiots
>>77763589
>Puckle demonstrated two configurations of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets. The square bullets were considered to be more damaging. They would, according to the patent, "convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilization". The weapon was also reported as able to fire shot, with each discharge containing sixteen musket balls.
>>77760113
Slavery was never constitutionally protected in the first place.
The right to keep and bear arms has always been protected, however.
Would you like to try to get a Constitutional Convention together to cut up the Bill of Rights?
>>77756005
>just let idiots spread lies all the time
>>77760376
They would have if they fucking could have.
>>77755816
This strategy is wrong. FOCUS ON DISMANTLING THE ASSUALT WEAPONS AND COMMONLY AVAILABLE MACHINE GUN FALLACIES.
>>77760414
Read the post, you stupid nigger.
>>77760113
Please direct me to this particular amendment
>>77763589
>>77755816
>And cartridges for fast loading were developed and used as far back as the late 1500's.
Wait source? That sounds amazingly interesting.
>>77755816
pretty sure they let people own cannons and those were way worse.
>>77756005
Why is it always a fucking leaf? Why did you idiots had to set a beautiful country like canada in to the direction that brazil is right now? Canada could have been the new US.
>>77755816
I thought that amendment was put in place to protect citizens from government
if the government gets better weapons, so should the people the law was designed to protect
They had freaking cannons and chain guns in the hands of civilian revolutionaries during that time. Literally shit tier parroted opinions.
>>77755816
The people are suppose to be armed. All of them. Why? Because the founding fathers knew that government corrupts because that's what it does. Government can start with the best intention, but inevitably it becomes a living thing. And it demands power to protect the people. It eats our rights to grow stronger, confining its people, to protect them. Then when people fight back they are labeled enemies, are then consumed to protect the majority, the weak and the hapless fools that throw their rights down its throat to protect them, unknowingly starving themselves as the monster coils tighter around them.
The people need guns, they need assault rifles to counter assault rifles. But we also need to have honest educations about life. Instead of subversive educations that teach to lead with emotion instead of logic. That we are better than what we are being sold. That children need to be nurtured and mentally and emotionally, not just bitched at and left to the side while the parents fall apart over their own stupidity.
>>77755816
>liberals thinking any of the founding fathers would've agreed with them or that a liberal back then has the same meaning today
some founding fathers were even more conservative than conservatives today
>>77768113
>born in the wrong generation
They allowed people to have personal cannons. That's pretty much the equivalent of a tank of the time.
>>77767366
Shill somewhere else.
Then go read the declaration of independence.
Let me summarize:
>".., it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
THIS is why we have the 2nd.
>>77764269
>He was trying to enrich Ottoman scum
shame it didn't work. should've drenched the bullets in pig fat and announced it
>>77768319
>hear something amazing you didn't knew
>ask about it
>"Shill somewhere else."
I was one of the few posters that actually read OP and that's what I get.
>>77760376
They could float them up next to a city and shoot the city though
>>77768440
Lol, why are we not using bacon wrapped ammunition against ISIS right now?
>I will die for Allah
>Even if your body is pumped full of bacon bullets
>Shit, uhh
>>77768539
Sorry, its late and I'm sick of shills sliding threads tonight.
4 hours ago I went to a friends house with 2 threads open...
One about blondes in conservative news ones about the owner of the gun store notifying the FBI about mateen weeks before the shooting.
Guess which was still active when I got back?
>>77769091
>Army makes a Sacred Band of Thebes SF unit of all faggots
>drops them into Iraq
>Psyops makes death cards in Arabic telling them they just got smoke checked by a bunch of faggots
This would really fuck with their heads
>>77769206
I'd guess the blondies one, but that's because sex "sells" and /pol/ is starved for decent women.
>>77755816
>Not 13.3 bullets a second
Is that why soldiers were formed into lines so over 50 could fire simultaneously?
>>77769206
DONT LEAVE US PALMING MATE
>>77769206
MATE
PALMING
MATE
>>77755816
Washington didn't have a Muslim or Nigger problem.
>the founders never foresaw any technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever
>what is a pepperbox revolver?
>what is a cannon?
>early versions of the Gatling gun (called the plinker) were around as early as 1689.
>>77758599
That's because the bill of rights was based of off the 16-something bill of rights, which had a right to arms provision. The English were disarmed under the illusion of "protecting the king's game" (in reality it had everything to do with the Catholic/Protestant feud)
That's why the hunting provision was added.
>>77755816
thats not true
nobody had planned on modernizing firearms and the usefulness of firearms back in the days of the founding fathers was absolutely worthless outside of war.
there are plenty of obscure technologies for faster loading and cartridge based systems back in those days, but none of them went anywhere because you really dont understand how ingenuity was handled back in those days.
the problem is how the founding fathers never saw the industrial revolution coming. this really changed everything. you had no idea what it was like to develop technology and machinery before the industrial revolution.
really, the founding fathers had no idea what guns would become.
and the only use firearms had in those days was to hit long rows of men in short volleys before everyone charged in and speard eachother.
guns literally had no use for hunting or any other single purpose. you couldnt take a rifle and pistol and just expect to personally kill someone effortlessly. it took a lot of effort
a knife was still the primary method of killing people back in those days, people never think this because they always see hollywood movies or paintings of men firing at eachother. but firearm casualties in battles were hardly over 30%
the rest was hand to hand
>>77755816
Check em plz
>>77755816
I'm sure their enemies didn't have 13.3 bullets per second either. Oh my bad, I forgot guns are only used to kill innocent people, what was I thinking!
Yeah those images are awful. Immediately can tell it's some liberal propaganda by the text font.
>>77776555
Wow, the level of butthurt and ignorance in this shitpost is completely out of control.
>>77756005
>It is my JOB to come into the thread and express my VERY important opinion. I have spoken.
>>77756645
Go get fucked you piece of shit liberal leaf faggot. You don't know shit about the US constitution and you don't know shit about fighting for your freedom. Shut the fuck up, get off my board, and go die of cancer alone.
>>77776555
It isn't about the gun. It's not about any type of gun, it isn't about the technology, it's about your ability to defend yourself and your freedoms from corrupt and tyrannical governments. They say arms, not even guns. Arms.
The 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st.
>>77776555
>guns literally had no use for hunting
then why did they produce hunting rifles in the 1700s?
>you couldnt take a rifle and pistol and just expect to personally kill someone effortlessly
Except that's what happened to Alexander Hamilton, because those niggers dueled with guns. One shot killed him.
