Reminder that “muh 2a” was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.
Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.
Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn’t what they intended, and you shouldn’t have it. Like computers; there’s no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I’ll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn’t seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed “heretics”, so no, it wasn’t strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn’t in the equation at all.
It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias,
You clearly forget that they extended that right to artillery as well. You were just as legally entitled to own a field cannon loaded with grapeshot as you were a musket. In point of fact, wealthy people that owned ships could and did outfit their ships with cannon either to be privateers under a letter of marque, or to fight off pirates and the privateers of other countries.
But even at that, at the time when the constitution was written, muzzle-loaded firearms were the pinnacle of war-time weaponry. Bayonet charges were common, and swords still saw extensive use in pitched battles. Not only that, but people were legally obligated to own militarily-suitable arms, and they were expected to train on their own. The concept of having a brace of pistols comes from this era; while they didn’t have repeating rifles, they did have pepperbox pistols that could fire multiple times before being reloaded. So this idea that it was not the intent that the people should have access to militarily-suitable weapons simply isn’t borne out by an understanding of history.
Reminder that “muh 2a” was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.
Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.
Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn’t what they intended, and you shouldn’t have it. Like computers; there’s no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I’ll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn’t seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed “heretics”, so no, it wasn’t strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn’t in the equation at all.
You clearly forget that they extended that right to artillery as well. You were just as legally entitled to own a field cannon loaded with grapeshot as you were a musket. In point of fact, wealthy people that owned ships could and did outfit their ships with cannon either to be privateers under a letter of marque, or to fight off pirates and the privateers of other countries.
But even at that, at the time when the constitution was written, muzzle-loaded firearms were the pinnacle of war-time weaponry. Bayonet charges were common, and swords still saw extensive use in pitched battles. Not only that, but people were legally obligated to own militarily-suitable arms, and they were expected to train on their own. The concept of having a brace of pistols comes from this era; while they didn’t have repeating rifles, they did have pepperbox pistols that could fire multiple times before being reloaded. So this idea that it was not the intent that the people should have access to militarily-suitable weapons simply isn’t borne out by an understanding of history.