Why would the Founders Regulate a TOOL ?

[Lowlight]

So the Left is ramping up the anti gun news media.

Every story is a MASS shooting now, except for the ones that don't fit the narrative of course

So scanning some of the comments everyday is a new call to ban or regulate something I keep seeing "Well Regulated" and people who even try to pretend they are somewhat sympathetic will say, "Well regulated" we just need to regulate guns... Of course they are liars pretending to be on our side while asking us to give in for the greater good.

Well Regulated Militia

That means the Militia is in good working order, they are trained ready, and able to perform their duties.

A militia is not the firearm, why would the founder even consider regulating a Tool ?

Back then a gun a tool, it was not a weapon of war, it was not just for killing stuff, it was for protection and putting food on the table.

This is a new concept guns are bad, so the idea they would have considered any sort of regulation is crazy

Guns are Tool, tools were never regulated

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Why? Fear selling to the sheep.
Ohh wait, that wasn't the founders. It's or present day politicians/communists.

I am guessing you missed the thread started by a "member" here advocating for the regulating of assault weapons and magazines.

 

[_Windrider_]

Is this post rhetorical? We’ve been saying this all along. No amount of discussion or rhetoric will change the minds of the grabbers because they control the government, law enforcement, media and propaganda arms of the nation.

 

[1J04]

@Maggot is a tool, and a pinko hippy, and we don't regulate him. I'm picking up what you're putting down, Corporal Galli.

Now which way is the Mess Hall?

 

[Rthur]

When you are "in charge" of the meaning of words all is possible.

R

 

[Lowlight]

I know, but since they like they pop in to see what we are saying I thought I would toss out some red meat

We are preaching to the choir

 

[hafejd30]

None of it is to regulate the tools

It’s to regulate the users

They want control. The constitution stands in their way.

1) Control the media
2) Take the guns

Convince the masses that certain people shouldn’t have 1st or 2nd amendment rights and eventually the masses will unknowingly fall in line

 

[Srikaleak]

Penn and Teller had a great video on how the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment actually works. I'll see if I can find it.

BTW, the comment thread on the TFB April Fools post is hilarious.

 

[Ravenworks]

So the Left is ramping up the anti gun news media.

Every story is a MASS shooting now, except for the ones that don't fit the narrative of course

So scanning some of the comments everyday is a new call to ban or regulate something I keep seeing "Well Regulated" and people who even try to pretend they are somewhat sympathetic will say, "Well regulated" we just need to regulate guns... Of course they are liars pretending to be on our side while asking us to give in for the greater good.

Well Regulated Militia

That means the Militia is in good working order, they are trained ready, and able to perform their duties.

A militia is not the firearm, why would the founder even consider regulating a Tool ?

Back then a gun a tool, it was not a weapon of war, it was not just for killing stuff, it was for protection and putting food on the table.

This is a new concept guns are bad, so the idea they would have considered any sort of regulation is crazy

Guns are Tool, tools were never regulated

Take 3 minutes to read this,as you read replace Marijuana with Firearms.

Conservatives Should Celebrate New York's Marijuana Legalization, With One Caveat

pjmedia.com

Should people be concerned with what is going on around them?
The alarm bell has been sounding loudly since 2008.
The Mexican drug cartel helped to kill 82,000 Americans last year with their cheap drugs.

 

[1J04]

Penn and Teller had a great video on how the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment actually works. I'll see if I can find it.

BTW, the comment thread on the TFB April Fools post is hilarious.

 

[davsco]

no one gives a crap about drunk or distracted driving and all the death and carnage. zero push to ban phones, booze or even cars. that's because everyone is invested in them, people can't seemingly survive without their phones, and everyone likes to kick back a cold one after work.

most everyone used to have guns back in the day. zero push to ban them. now, most don't, so a gun out and about will most likely only hurt them, so it's real easy to just say ban the guns. plus no one wants to hold criminals (or anyone else) accountable for their actions, so they hope and dream that if they take away their guns/tools all of a sudden the criminals will stop their violence.

 

[Animal357]

Proof the the 2nd A protect "military" arms:

When the 2nd A was written, firearms were mostly muskets. Since the 2nd A protected muskets, and the military used muskets, the 2nd protects military weapons in the hands of privates citizens

 

[1J04]

 

[Srikaleak]

Also, to remind everyone: 2020 was the highest year for gun sales that introduced several MILLION new gun OWNERS to the fold.

~400 million firearms in circulation in this country. They aren't going to be able to take any of that away. Down the line they could make it harder to acquire a gun but with this being the current Administration I don't see it happening unless politicians themselves become victims.

"White House Causes Frustration In Private And Public Responses To Gun Violence"

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Another point to argue with the idiots about this whole debacle, but one that solves ALL of the problems in society as a whole:

Ban mental illness.

Because we all know, that all one needs to do is pass a law, then all the problems are solved. Just think (see what I did there?) of all the issues that are created by people not thinking clearly and responsibly. Therefore, if the world were to make mental illness against the law, then the world will be a better place. It's for the children.

 

[Long_Action]

People don't think Regulations be like they be, but it do..... but it do

 

[Choid]

I'll play Devil's advocate on this one. Obviously the Founders didn't think about guns like they did shovels, because they felt it necessary to protect guns against restriction, while they never began to question whether shovels would be restricted. A tool, sure. But a tool that had already been restricted in many places by the founding.

 

[Lowlight]

the laws only applied in select "cities" like London,

Boston tried some about loaded firearms but that was because of the fire hazard and the black powder used.

The Wilderness was never regulated, the only regulation the colonies demanded were to monitor those who reported for the militia simply to maintain a record of the readiness really

 

[Choid]

the laws only applied in select "cities" like London,

Boston tried some about loaded firearms but that was because of the fire hazard and the black powder used.

The Wilderness was never regulated, the only regulation the colonies demanded were to monitor those who reported for the militia simply to maintain a record of the readiness really

The main question remains. If they weren't worried about firearm regulation, like they weren't about shovel regulation, why would they bother? I think they knew that firearms were more valuable as a way to preserve freedom than any other hand tool. That's my only point. They singled them out for protection exactly because they saw them differently.

 

[Desert_Racer]

They don’t give a fuck about public safety. It’s all lies masking what their true intent is. They don’t place any value in human life, period. No communist ever has. They think they are above us. We are nothing more to them than animals to be controlled and exploited. They can’t completely violate, control, and exploit us until we have no means of fighting back. Through five decades of subversion, they have brainwashed half the population into being an army of useful idiots, loaded with radical leftist ideology. No amount of logical discourse will convince someone fueled by emotion. Trying to convince these people to see the light is a waste of breath. Little do they know, as this same story has unfolded multiple times throughout history, the useful idiots end up in the gulag also, standing right next to their neighbors whom they fucked over.

We the People demand freedom and dignity, and will secure it by any means necessary. We owe it to our children and to our forefathers who watered the earth with their blood in exchange for our freedom.

Edit: I think the fact that the radical leftists own the media gives the illusion that we lovers of freedom and gun owners are the minority. I don’t believe this is the case. Take a look at an electoral map of the United States, broken down by county. We outnumber these traitors, massively.

 

[Animal357]

You can't use facts and logic to argue someone out of a position that they used stupidity to get into.

 

[Lowlight]

they were actually more worried about Loyalty

The use and regulation usually formed around Loyalty oaths to whomever was in power

As noted public safety was never an issue except in the cities and the biggest factor there I saw was fire and black powder

Fire scared them a lot more than guns

 

[Gommer]

They didn't regulate a tool. They explicitly said those tools are not to be regulated and the government is NOT to create it's own shop outside a time of work. When the government needs work done it is to call upon the tradesmen who will bring their own tools and get said work done.

So, the shitbags decided to create never-ending work and take over the business. Fuck them, fuck their rules, and fuck anyone who tries to enforce them with a giant wrench right up their ass.

 

[The King]

The phrase I used recently was:

I don’t intend to give up my ocean of freedom for a mere drip of safety.

 

[1J04]

Gentlemen, please. Let's try and keep the comments regarding the "walk-on" at 1:34 to a minimum.

Okay?

 

[DIBBS]

It is simply , about control, and removing more and more of our Inalienable Rights.

They (elected officials ) have to a large degree, succeded with taking from us without consequence. Many of those in DC work behind fences and barricades protected by armed guards.

WHY .....

because they KNOW what they are doing and have done is Illegal and unlawful, yet there have been zero consequences for their actions.

An unarmed society is a defeated society... not my words but appropriate. Citizens turn into victims in this scenario.

 

[Choid]

they were actually more worried about Loyalty

The use and regulation usually formed around Loyalty oaths to whomever was in power

As noted public safety was never an issue except in the cities and the biggest factor there I saw was fire and black powder

Fire scared them a lot more than guns

That's all fine, but there are only two options. First, they didn't see the gun as a tool, and they felt it needed to be protected because it was important, or second, they saw the gun as just another tool, but had the foresight to know that future demagogues might not, so they needed to protect it. Whichever it was, they clearly saw it as an important step along with codifying the rights to exercise of religion, speech, freedom from illegal seizure etc. There were a lot of important things they didn't include, but arms were among the ones they did, so we can only assume they were seen as different from the ones they didn't in some way.

IIRC, France, for example, had strict gun restrictions going back to the 1500s. The founders were well aware of this, and of similar laws elsewhere, and I assume that is why they chose to include the second amendment. They weren't just reacting to England or to colonial law. They were pretty historically and philosophically savvy.

In any case, thankfully they did it, or we would be Australia.

FWIW, I do agree that they were more OK with local and state restrictions on all enumerated rights, and that in general, they truly did see the bill of rights as restricting the federal government, not necessarily dictating what a city could say about who could have black powder and how it could be stored.

 

[wade2big]

Its not what “they” do that matters. It’s what we do or don’t that does. The time for questioning what govt does and rationalizing our acceptance is over. There is nothing to debate.

Are you/me willing to pay the price for a chance at feedom regardless of the cost? Answer honestly. This will involve career changes for many. It may involve pulling your children out of schools that you damn sure know they shouldn’t be in. It may involve a completely different mindset when to comes to those that protect this illegal govt.

 

[Lowlight]

Sure it's a tool,

It help build freedom, the opposition understands that too so of course X amount of regulation would be put in place because that particular tool can hurt them.

But consider this.

Every image of citizen back then storming the gates, most carried something including their farming tools

Looks like a shovel in that picture

they went into battle with whatever they had ... pitchforks, scythes, etc,

 

[Choid]

Sure it's a tool,

It help build freedom, the opposition understands that too so of course X amount of regulation would be put in place because that particular tool can hurt them.

But consider this.

Every image of citizen back then storming the gates, most carried something including their farming tools

Looks like a shovel in that picture

they went into battle with whatever they had ... pitchforks, scythes, etc,

Arguably, the second amendment would cover the right to bear pitchforks and scythes as arms. It doesn't limit itself to firearms. It doesn't protect the right to have a pitchfork for hay. Pretty easy to figure out why. Sounds silly, but it isn't a joke. It was the function of arms that they were trying to protect, and surely they also understood that the most endangered of them were guns and other war weapons that the sovereign might fear.

 

[Lowlight]

We have a variety of "Arms"

Swords, Clubs, Guns, Knives, Pikes, both edged and blunt force

 

[Choid]

We have a variety of "Arms"

Swords, Clubs, Guns, Knives, Pikes, both edged and blunt force

I agree, as I said above. And all are more protected, constitutionally, than kitchen knives and backhoes used in their "normal" uses. In other words, a kitchen knife is more a protected implement against a home invader than it is against a head of broccoli.

 

[_Windrider_]

That's all fine, but there are only two options. First, they didn't see the gun as a tool, and they felt it needed to be protected because it was important, or second, they saw the gun as just another tool, but had the foresight to know that future demagogues might not, so they needed to protect it. Whichever it was, they clearly saw it as an important step along with codifying the rights to exercise of religion, speech, freedom from illegal seizure etc. There were a lot of important things they didn't include, but arms were among the ones they did, so we can only assume they were seen as different from the ones they didn't in some way.

IIRC, France, for example, had strict gun restrictions going back to the 1500s. The founders were well aware of this, and of similar laws elsewhere, and I assume that is why they chose to include the second amendment. They weren't just reacting to England or to colonial law. They were pretty historically and philosophically savvy.

In any case, thankfully they did it, or we would be Australia.

FWIW, I do agree that they were more OK with local and state restrictions on all enumerated rights, and that in general, they truly did see the bill of rights as restricting the federal government, not necessarily dictating what a city could say about who could have black powder and how it could be stored.

The whole constitution is a restriction on the federal. That’s the whole point.

 

[Lowlight]

I understand that,

What I am saying is they are smart enough to understand that back then, everything was a tool or used as a weapon for defense

So why not be proactive to say, don't touch any of it ...

The only talk of regulation is regarding the running of the militia, the rest is Shall not be Infringed because they knew enough when you have monarchs to protect the little guy, rules can change at any moment and are never applied equally

When you consider the way "governments" or Monarchs, Rulers, et al, Ruled, back then, they understood incremental loses of rights and unequal Justice

today we have that very thing on full display,

 

[MK20]

Here is a machine gun that was available for public sale in 1792.

 

[The King]

I understand that,

What I am saying is they are smart enough to understand that back then, everything was a tool or used as a weapon for defense

So why not be proactive to say, don't touch any of it ...

The only talk of regulation is regarding the running of the militia, the rest is Shall not be Infringed because they knew enough when you have monarchs to protect the little guy, rules can change at any moment and are never applied equally

When you consider the way "governments" or Monarchs, Rulers, et al, Ruled, back then, they understood incremental loses of rights and unequal Justice

today we have that very thing on full display,

Even their discussion of regulating the militia didn’t mean the creation of the national guard.

They meant specifically a well led/drilled/equipped/trained militia of commoners led by commoners separate from the government.

Their purpose was multi-fold - one was that they had just seen the failure of a leading military to project power over the oceans against a peasant militia. Secondly, standing armies had always been a key tool used in the death of freedom, and were considered undesirable.

They were right on both counts.

Our need to fight the Civil War/World Wars/Cold War bent and twisted our country into quite a mess.

 

[_Windrider_]

Even their discussion of regulating the militia didn’t mean the creation of the national guard.

They meant specifically a well led/drilled/equipped/trained militia of commoners led by commoners separate from the government.

Their purpose was multi-fold - one was that they had just seen the failure of a leading military to project power over the oceans against a peasant militia. Secondly, standing armies had always been a key tool used in the death of freedom, and were considered undesirable.

They were right on both counts.

Our need to fight the Civil War/World Wars/Cold War bent and twisted our country into quite a mess.

The national guard is the equivalent of a standing army which is something the founders abhored and warned against. Not that I don’t support their overall mission, I do not support armed NG soldiers anywhere in the US. Humanitarian activity is an excellent use of that resource.

 

[MtnCreek]

I'll play Devil's advocate on this one...

 

[quietmike]

The founders originally limited voting to landowners, ie. those with skin in the game.

It all started going downhill when that was eliminated.
A person living on the dole has already demonstrated they suck at decision making, so why should they have a say in who runs the country?

 

[Lowlight]

there was a 19 shot air rifle used in the 1800s that could take an Elk

it had 150 yard range

The Girardoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Many references to the Girardoni air rifles mention lethal combat ranges of 125 to 150 yards and some extend that range considerably. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it acceptance. It did have problems and was eventually removed from service for several reasons decades after introduction. There was also a version sold to civilians after it was removed from military service. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots, it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply.

In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break in the reservoir could make it inoperable. It was also very different from any other weapon of the time, requiring extensive training to use.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.

he rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lb (4.5 kg), about the same basic size and weight as infantry muskets of the time. It fired a .46 or .51 caliber ball and had a tubular, spring-fed[5] magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. Some of the weapons were also made using a gravity fed magazine. Unlike its contemporary, muzzle-loading muskets, which required the rifleman to stand up to reload with powder and ball, the shooter could reload a ball from the magazine by pulling a transverse chamber bar out of the breech which allowed a ball to be supplied to it and which then rebounded back to its original position with the aid of a spring, all while lying down Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 1 in the chamber, 19 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes. Equipment not carried attached to the rifle was held in a special leather knapsack. It was also necessary to keep the leather gaskets of the reservoir moist in order to maintain a good seal and prevent leakage.

The air reservoir was in the club shaped stock. With a full air reservoir, the Girardoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 125 yd (114 m) on a full air reservoir. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied. Design-wise, the air reservoir was similar to the disposable carbon dioxide cartridges used on some modern air guns.

 

[Choid]

The whole constitution is a restriction on the federal. That’s the whole point.

Sure, but the 14th amendment incorporated almost the entire bill of rights to the states. Now people think the original meaning of the constitution was to limit the states. I think, unfortunately, that a lot of local and state gun restrictions would have been fine with the founders, but not federal restrictions. That is how I understand the way the Constitution reads, and how they interpreted it in their own lifetimes. But federalism is dead.

 

[Choid]

Are you under the impression that I believe everything I say?

 

[Not a Sniper]

Here is a machine gun that was available for public sale in 1792.

There was also the Puckle gun in early 1700's:

Puckle gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MK20]

I try to be honest and only say what i believe.

 

[quietmike]

The only talk of regulation is regarding the running of the militia,

Regulated in that sense means functioning properly. There can't be a trained militia w/o the arms to practice and become familiar.

When Jamie Lee Curtis was advertising Activia yogurt for "regulating" your colon, yogurt doesn't restrict your bowels.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Just semantics in an attempt to conflate "Well Regulated" with regulation.

 

[Choid]

Just semantics in an attempt to conflate "Well Regulated" with regulation.

To be fair, I don't think that argument is aimed at people with functioning gray matter.

 

[Lowlight]

Well Regulated by the definition I saw back then meant

To Lead, or well Lead ...

Like anything a word can have multiple meaning, but the old English does say more about properly leading people than regulating them

The problem with functioning properly it sounds like a firearm or tool but it's not

Functioning properly was well trained and capably lead, the firearm part of the militia was to be in good working order, well maintained, reading anything, that was a case for punishment if you reported to drill with a firearm not in the right conditions for the time.

Being late to drill, firearm out of sorts, etc, was part of the military order of things

 

[Baron23]

IMO, the anti-2A crowd purposefully and willingly ignore the rules of grammar to make their point.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a somwhat vague statement of general intent. So fucking what.

The verb is "infringe" modified by "shall not be". The noun is "right"

That the "right" of the people "shall not be infringed" is neither vague nor ill defined. Its quite unambiguous and clear.

Everything else said on the subject is utter bullshit.

But, if we give even some small amount of credence to the arguments of the antis, we then must look at what "militia" meant at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8]

• Organized militia – consisting of State Defense Forces, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10]
• Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.[11]

since approximately 1665, militia has taken the meaning "a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers"

U.S. Supreme Court adopted the following definition for "active militia" from an Illinois Supreme Court case of 1879: " 'a body of citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in times of peace'. . . when not engaged at stated periods . . . they return to their usual avocations . . . and are subject to call when public exigencies demand it."[14]

To me, this undermines any Machiavellian and self-serving arguments made by the antis who promote their view of "militia" as National Guard only which is completely false but used because it suits their purpose which is to remove guns from the population no matter how much damage they do to the Constitution and our country.

 

[_Windrider_]

Well Regulated by the definition I saw back then meant

To Lead, or well Lead ...

Like anything a word can have multiple meaning, but the old English does say more about properly leading people than regulating them

The problem with functioning properly it sounds like a firearm or tool but it's not

Functioning properly was well trained and capably lead, the firearm part of the militia was to be in good working order, well maintained, reading anything, that was a case for punishment if you reported to drill with a firearm not in the right conditions for the time.

Being late to drill, firearm out of sorts, etc, was part of the military order of things

The only caution I have on this thought is that who meets and drills? The national guard that’s who. This plays into their argument that the NG is the militia and not the people. Who would the militia meet and drill with if the constitution did not establish and maintain N army but rather only a Navy? To me, well regulated in the kings English, is prepared, ready and proficient.