Founding Further

October 20, 2015
Founding Further

About this comic

No matter where you land on the 2nd amendment, you HAVE to admit nobody in Virginia in June of 1789 had any idea how that trusty old musket might evolve.

27 Responses to Founding Further

  1. C Sayers says:

    Perhaps, perhaps not. The founders in many ways were more liberal about possession of weapons than modern times; it was not unusual for private citizens to have the most powerful weapons of war available — the very same heavy weaponry of the military at the time. Specifically, cannons in the possession of private ship owners (or privateers).

  2. Scott Sanders says:

    No matter where you land on the 1st amendment, you HAVE to admit nobody in Virginia in June of 1789 had any idea how that trusty quill pen might evolve.

    Sees internet and yells: “What the hell is that!”

  3. Randy says:

    I personally support gun rights to the fullest, own zero guns and find this comic funny lol but as all ways some one hates it because of the message they receive; that it’s anti “modern gun” (AK’s and whatnot)

    Love your work.

  4. Brian O'Reilly says:

    I have to disagree. I hear this argument a lot, but the fact is that many of the founding fathers were forward thinkers and inventors. Ben Franklin, being the best known inventor, had to have known that guns would only get better with time and engineering. Keep in mind that the muskets of the 18th century were far superior to the blunderbuss of the 17th century. It also wasn’t too far in the Founding Father’s past that guns didn’t exist at all. That is why that didn’t give us the right to own ‘guns’ but to bear ‘arms.’ The second amendment covers guns, knives, swords, tazers, stun guns, and anything else we may invent.

    • Lars says:

      Does it also cover Nuclear ICBMs, Phaser Pistols and the Death Star as well?

    • Mike Malsed says:

      Also remember, at the time rifles were new-fangled and pretty revolutionary, having not been used much in warfare.

      But, honestly, to really take your analogy, we’d have to transplant back 200 years more. How would the founding fathers think it if they were “limited” to the weapons found in the 1500s? Polearms, quarterstaves, maces, crossbows and longbows, arquebuses, ballistas and trebuches. Weapon technology had FAR surpassed what was around 200 years prior to the founding fathers, just as it has far surpassed them in the 200 years since.

      Your argument is simplistic and invalid.

    • Enn says:

      Brian O’Reilly – Disagree if you wish, but I doubt you’d be able to imagine what weapons will be like in 200+ years.
      I’m not clear about your statement, “I hear this argument a lot”. Who’s arguing? I think Scott’s statement is pretty clear and is neither “pro gun” nor “anti gun”. It’s a much stronger statement about time travel and change than it is about gun regulation.

      • Mike Malsed says:

        My comment seems to have disappeared.

        The parallel is not really valid. The whole “200 years” thing never examines the fact that 200 years prior to the Founding Fathers, most weapons were hand to hand, trebuches, etc. Look it up – rifles were unheard of and the range of arbolests (state of the art) was a few feet.

        It’s becoming a very common argument about the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment – Oh, the Founders would never have written that had they known what an M16 was. . . any more than Niccolo Machiavelli could have imagined, when he wrote “The Prince”, how warfare would look during the American Independence.

  5. Ed says:

    Being from Virginia, and being a fan of James Madison, I feel compelled to point out that his initial proposal for what became the Second Amendment was concerned less with people’s right to bear arms (although he agreed that it shouldn’t be infringed) and concerned more with restricting the Government from compelling people religiously opposed to bearing arms against others into doing so.

    Comically, that part ended up being left on the cutting room floor by the Senate in September of 1789 and now we live in a country where the Second Amendment is often most closely associated with religious people… the very people Madison was trying to protect from having to use guns in the first place.

  6. Craig Hageman says:

    I’m disappointed in this. You might as well make it about the first amendment and have the surprising guy in the second panel be a web cartoonist. I doubt the founding fathers predicted the internet, but the core concepts of free speech and bearing arms are the important parts. Not the technicalities of how they are achieved.

  7. Richard Whitman says:

    “The second amendment covers guns, knives, swords, tazers, stun guns, and anything else we may invent.”

    But not grenades, bazookas, missiles, nuclear weapons, napalm? We invented those too! Your inclusions are arbitrary and you can’t mind-read the founding fathers, who wanted the Constitution to be amended with the times anyway.

  8. Scott says:

    Ohhhh you ammosexuals are so darn cute when you show your willful ignorance.

  9. thedude says:

    When the 2nd amendment was written, private citizens owned the largest weapons of war that government armies had. Cannons, warships, etc.

  10. Yeti says:

    I get the feeling the founding fathers hadn’t anticipated all the possibilities of how they can be used on civilians by civilians. Their minds were set on allowing the people to overthrow unjust leaders. Maybe they should have added in some fine print.

  11. Vake Xeacons says:

    True. While the M16A4 Service Rifle, as our proud man in uniform is holding, is quite simple, it would be bigger weapons such as rocket and grenade launchers that would scare our Founding Fathers. However, when it comes to weapons, even knives and bats, it’s what people are doing with them, rather than the size that truly is frightening.

  12. Scott Sanders says:

    No matter where you land on the 1st amendment, you HAVE to admit nobody in Virginia in June of 1789 had any idea how that trusty old quill pen might evolve.

  13. Falos says:

    They had Killing Sticks too.

    But sure, it’s interpretable. The militia text is also hard to sense out. And consider, their age was one where ALL possessions and purchases didn’t circulate with department stores and airmail and ubiquitous highways and instant communication. The mental context of having/getting a gun (or any object/event) was different.

    I’m not using this to stage an argument in either direction, just that It’s Complicated, and I doubt we’ll ever get an uninfluenced proponent to champion. To say nothing of corruption.

    • steelcobra says:

      Well, when you consider at the time that the militia meant every man of fighting age (and US code still legally classifies two types of militia, all men 17-45, and the National Guard), and that the definition of “well-regulated” meant “working like it’s supposed to” then it’s not that hard to see that it was meant to protect personal ownership, as in times of emergency the people would be called up to defend the homeland.

      And really, there’s nothing they’d consider magical about modern arms. Repeaters had been around for at least a century at that point, but muzzle loaders were cheaper and easier to manufacture. And they would undoubtedly be appalled had there been zero improvements in range, accuracy, reliability, and firing rate in 200 years.

      • Soyweiser says:

        Well, nukes are pretty magical. And this thing (man ‘portable’ nuke) is pretty scary.

        That is kinda my issue with this comic. It missed the mark a little bit. Would have been funnier if The founding father stood next to a fallout guy carrying a fat man.

        Right now it just looks like another comedian giving his 2 cents into the US gun debate. Bit tiring tbh.

        • Soyweiser says:

          And I know… somebody is now thinking of Vault boy carrying an actual overweight person. And not a brotherhood of steel guy in power armor with a fat man rocket launcher :).

  14. Vake Xeacons says:

    Actually, our rifles are pretty weak compared to 18th century style. A musket could take a man’s head off, but these 5.56 mm rounds can hit him in the chest and barely knock him down. The better part is it doesn’t take a minute to reload.

  15. Ajax4Hire says:

    The right to own a gun is the right to be free.
    “The Weapon Shops of Isher” by A. E. van Vogt

    Let me rephrase it for today;
    The right to self defense, to a defense lawyer is the right to be free.

    Are you ready to give up you right to defense against the government, your right to a vigorous defense?
    No? Then you support the right to defensive weapons, like encryption, lawyers, and curtains.

  16. Chris Liddell says:

    I love the body language and facial expression in the second frame. Well done!

  17. Grimjac says:

    Modern society tends to view what our `founding fathers intended’ through the lens of our current situation, rather than the context of their times. At that point `arms’ referred to personal arms…rifles, handguns, etc. Artillery and explosives were referred to in other terms. Plus, the success of the revolution was only due to the availability of those arms and having fought free of what they considered a tyranny, they were committed to making sure `the people’ always had that option available. We modern folks have a difficult time thinking that might ever be a consideration…but I’m equally sure the modern folk of 1750 felt the same. For me, I’d rather have a gun and never need it than need one and not have it. True freedom is really about having options. Some are hard, some are easy, some not worth the effort, some beyond the bounds of probability…for me, freedom is the ability to choose. Your thoughts may differ.

  18. Son-of-a-gun it’s just the butt-of-the-gun.

Comments are closed.