Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)9. not true
They did have some rules & regulations, tacit & expressed; bayonets were generally not allowed to be attached to a musket when in town during peacetime. Concealed carry of weapons was either illicit or frowned upon.
but not banned until the 1920s outside of the South
Gun control in late 1700's would have been largely unnecessary; for one, gun ownership was limited to about 25% of the white male population (iirc, 1803 dearborn census) - because of this low ownership rate american white males were rather urged to purchase & own guns due to militia rules dictated by the militia act of 1792. One could leave his unloaded musket with buck ball & powder out all day long & the danger to his small kids would've been fingers caught in the barrel.
no evidence to support the claim, outside of an academic fraud.
Your remark above that guns are far more regulated now than {1790's} is specious & straight out of 2nd amendment mythology; back then they didn't have sophisticated semi-automatic rifles, hermetically sealed ammo, magazines to hold 10, 20, 30 rounds or 100 round drums, bump stocks, silencers, compensators. I think a main safety concern would've been if you were to drop your 8 lb musket, on your toes.
Not relevant, and semi autos existed then. Bump stocks are a joke and non issue.
Gun control laws developed as a result of the evolution of modern day firearms; that you dismiss this flippantly as, presumably, to denigrate gun control efforts as some kind of tyrannical imposition to the 2nd amendment, is just another chapter from the 2nd amendment mythology bible.
Gun control laws developed for authoritarian control, not public safety. Perfect example is Italy in 1931, Britain in the 1920s, and Japan a few centuries ago.Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right [View all]
sharedvalues
Aug 2019
OP
Yup, Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller enshrined something made up out of whole cloth
RockRaven
Aug 2019
#1
Can we change the name of this forum? "Gun control and made-up Republican RKBA"?
sharedvalues
Aug 2019
#5
It's been considered here several times before, and shown to be false
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2019
#63
As you've seen, if ones' only strengths are 'repeated argument by assertion'...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2019
#11
It's sad that you and 16 other people believe that law review articles actually have legal weight
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2019
#10
Thank you. I didn't have the energy to deconstruct sarisataka's many misleading points
sharedvalues
Aug 2019
#29
Wow. DOJ 1938: "2nd A does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms"
sharedvalues
Aug 2019
#32
Obvious answer: Because, when read in full, it doesn't say what James claims it says.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2019
#52
Yes. Scalia was a right-wing partisan and his "originalism" was just a front
sharedvalues
Aug 2019
#31