2nd Amendment. What did the Founding Fathers consider "arms".

[Blueblaze]

Right. Ordinary people should have the weapons being used in the Ukraine war right now. The Founding Fathers would have found that acceptable.


Exactly.

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.

I think Taltarzac725's sarcastic post merely means he objects to scary-looking black rifles that he doesn't understand. I suspect they scare him because he never served his country and therefore has no idea what a real military weapon looks like. And he's obviously never been hunting or he would understand the difference between a little .223 caliber varmint-hunting gun and a seriously deadly 30-06 deer-hunting rifle.

Taltarzac725 -- since you find this subject so confusing, I have a suggestion. Drive over to Sportsman's Paradise this afternoon and ask them to show you the difference between a .223 round and a 30-06 round. I think you will be able to instantly discern which one is more likely to instantly kill a man. Then ask the guy to show you a .223 rifle and a 30-06 rifle, and see which one "looks" the scariest.

Believe it or not, looks can be deceiving.

Then, try to imagine yourself on a battlefield in 1776, facing an Englishman from 25 yards away, who is shooting at you with a beautifully-crafted "Brown Bess" musket, which fires a 3/4" round ball of lead at twice the speed of sound. You have no armor or protection of any kind and you are fighting the way they fought in those days -- standing in a line, shooting straight ahead. Your odds of surviving the experience are about one in four -- unlike today, when your odds of surviving a modern wartime gun battle using scary black rifles firing 700 hundred rounds a minute from 100 yards away are about 9 to one.

Is it sinking in, yet?

If the problem of lunatics with scary black varmint rifles bothers you, here's an idea.

Instead of trying to outlaw the millions of scary black guns already in circulation, what if we outlawed LUNATICS -- like we did for the 200 years before the asylums were emptied and we started having mass-murder events every month or so?

[Sarah_W]

I said in a previous post that I agreed that schools should harden their perimeters. Also, large churches and all squares with entertainment in the US, which would be soft targets. Teachers should have bulletproof rooms where they could squeeze the students into during an emergency. This would mean increasing people's property tax and that would be a TOUGH sell. So, I agree with some of your post.
........As far as my being wrong about the zero Australian mass murders. Yes, if it was really 17 mass killing events since 1997. and I will take your word on that. Then, TECHNICALLY......I misspoke myself. BUT, big but........when you consider that 1997 is 25 years ago. Then 17 mass murders in Australia divided by 25 years is .68 mass murders PER YEAR in Australia. Now let us consider the population of Australia and the US. Australia has 27 million people. US about 360 million or about 13 times greater. So, to equalize Australia and the US to correctly compare mass murders we need to multiply Australia's mass murder rate of .68 per year by multiplying that rate by 13 which gives us - 8.84 So, call that about 9 mass killing events per year. In other words......if the US had the laws and social attitude that Australia has, then there would be ONLY 9 mass murder events in the US per year. Compare that to what the US ACTUALLY has, which is about 360 YEAR TO DATE this year. If we extrapolate out to the end of this year, we get 620 mass murder events.
.......So, when I said Australia had zero (and I thought I read that) ...... when you compare the number 9 to the number 620 .......that makes the 9 almost zero in comparison. And it makes me really wish that I lived in Australia with respect to mass murder events. But even more so and better, I would wish to live in the US and children's lives and adult lives were MORE VALUED like they are in Australia and New Zealand. Ask yourself is it better that my gun goes off.....bang, bang, bang real QUICKLY (SEMI-AUTO) or how about the trade-off of ......bang........bang..........bang a little bit slower to save ALL those lives -------------the 620 times 5 or more LIVES that the US will lose in THIS year alone.

Your solution is unacceptable. I'm a law abiding citizen. Taking away my Constitutional rights is not acceptable to me. Suggesting that I compromise my Constitutional rights because of evil people, is not acceptable to me.

The solution you propose is based on false logic and will not yield the results you claim. You claim there have been 360 mass shootings so far this year. I'm assuming you have facts to back up that claim. If so, how many people were killed by semi-automatic rifles. That should be an easy number for you to come up with.

While we are waiting for that answer, let's solve another problem. There are 463,634 rape victims on average every year in the US. That number would be zero if we castrate every man in the US and every man entering the US. There are 162,400,000 males in the US and I understand that castrating them all might be expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Statistically, 1 out of 6 women have been the victim of rape or attempted rape. Out of 167,500,000 females in the US that means there are 27,916,667 raped females walking the streets. What a horrific picture that paints for America! Wouldn't you agree that if every man was legally required to get castrated our rape problem would be solved. It is a small ask.

[Sarah_W]

I just read that Sapirman carried an AR-15-type rifle, which substantiates my opinion that those are the weapons of choice for US mass murderers. He probably would have killed more if he had chosen an elevated position and somewhere that offered protection from fire from citizens with pistols. I agree that the person that had a license to carry was INDEED a hero.
.........My conclusion is that it is great to have an armed hero available in this situation. But, what would cause fewer mass murders MORE armed heroes or LESS availability of semi-auto rifles in the hands of the demented mass killers? I would prefer the solution to be FEWER semi-auto rifles sold in the American market. In my opinion, MORE armed heroes is the weaker solution. It is like on the world stage........we all want FEWER countries to be nuclear-armed, not more.
........Allowing open carry in ALL states IMO would be good ONLY for the gun makers and terrible for society's safety. Even the Police are basically against that.
........And I agree that there are bad psychological ramifications for both children and adults (speeding and dangerous driving seem to have increased)....from the Pandemic which has killed one million US citizens and is still killing them.....just at a lower rate.

The FBI, DOJ and CDC all say you are wrong and have the data to prove that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd do your homework before making outrageously false claims.

If you really want to solve the problem of mass shootings and at this point I'm beginning to doubt that because you are not taking the solutions seriously. Call out the media for glorifying these evil deeds. Demand they stop giving the killer the notoriety they seek. Encourage everyone to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, get effective training and stop shooters where they stand. Take away their fame and take away their "high score" and the motivation disappears. Why aren't you doing something about this?

Who is talking about open carry? Half of our states, 25, are now Constitutional Carry. Florid is teed up to also be Constitutional Carry. Armed citizens stopped armed criminals 2.5 million times last year. it is estimated that 50-75% of those encounters saved a life. Isn't that awesome!

[jimjamuser]

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.

I think Taltarzac725's sarcastic post merely means he objects to scary-looking black rifles that he doesn't understand. I suspect they scare him because he never served his country and therefore has no idea what a real military weapon looks like. And he's obviously never been hunting or he would understand the difference between a little .223 caliber varmint-hunting gun and a seriously deadly 30-06 deer-hunting rifle.

Taltarzac725 -- since you find this subject so confusing, I have a suggestion. Drive over to Sportsman's Paradise this afternoon and ask them to show you the difference between a .223 round and a 30-06 round. I think you will be able to instantly discern which one is more likely to instantly kill a man. Then ask the guy to show you a .223 rifle and a 30-06 rifle, and see which one "looks" the scariest.

Believe it or not, looks can be deceiving.

Then, try to imagine yourself on a battlefield in 1776, facing an Englishman from 25 yards away, who is shooting at you with a beautifully-crafted "Brown Bess" musket, which fires a 3/4" round ball of lead at twice the speed of sound. You have no armor or protection of any kind and you are fighting the way they fought in those days -- standing in a line, shooting straight ahead. Your odds of surviving the experience are about one in four -- unlike today, when your odds of surviving a modern wartime gun battle using scary black rifles firing 700 hundred rounds a minute from 100 yards away are about 9 to one.

Is it sinking in, yet?

If the problem of lunatics with scary black varmint rifles bothers you, here's an idea.

Instead of trying to outlaw the millions of scary black guns already in circulation, what if we outlawed LUNATICS -- like we did for the 200 years before the asylums were emptied and we started having mass-murder events every month or so?
It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem is that mass murder events are increasing and will continue to increase. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

[jimbomaybe]

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem of mass murder events is increasing and will continue. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.
You have brought up "obscene" profits of the gun manufactures (more than once?) they sell guns because people want to own them, not as much for fear of a mass shooter but the run of the mill criminal that has little or no fear of punishment

[Sarah_W]

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem of mass murder events is increasing and will continue. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

It would be really nice if you'd start your own thread and not hijack this one. Kindly stay on topic. For this thread it is "What did the founding fathers consider arms".

[ThirdOfFive]

The FBI, DOJ and CDC all say you are wrong and have the data to prove that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd do your homework before making outrageously false claims.

If you really want to solve the problem of mass shootings and at this point I'm beginning to doubt that because you are not taking the solutions seriously. Call out the media for glorifying these evil deeds. Demand they stop giving the killer the notoriety they seek. Encourage everyone to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, get effective training and stop shooters where they stand. Take away their fame and take away their "high score" and the motivation disappears. Why aren't you doing something about this?

Who is talking about open carry? Half of our states, 25, are now Constitutional Carry. Florid is teed up to also be Constitutional Carry. Armed citizens stopped armed criminals 2.5 million times last year. it is estimated that 50-75% of those encounters saved a life. Isn't that awesome!
There is a huge irony here.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, four things happen. 1). Media histrionics blow the entire thing up so out of proportion that it dominates the air and print media for weeks. Not just the shooting but of course vilifying the weapon, psychoanalyzing the shooter, and of course endless interviews of the bereaved, etc. etc. ad endless nauseam. Which then leads to 2). Copycat shooters. Studies have shown that anywhere from 50% to 80% of these shootings are copycat crimes. 1 and 2 together of course produces 3. Anti - Second Amendment political types which commandeer every camera, microphone and reporter within grabbing distance to thunder forth their HATRED OF ALL THINGS GUN and call for, in varying degrees, anything from limitation to outright banning of specific, or all, firearms.

But then comes 4. And 4 follows 1 through 3 as inevitably as water running downhill. Law-abiding folks buy up guns and ammunition like it was going out of style. Gun and ammo factories running 24/7/365 cannot keep up with the demand. This seemed to get into gear in all seriousness on about November 2008, which was the first real gun/ammo shortage I remember. And with each succeeding sequence of events 1 through 3, #4 seems to get worse. And not just guns and ammo; but reloading supplies as well. I did some reloading before coming here. New brass in the popular calibers was hard to find (fortunately I had a lot of old stuff) and magnum pistol primers were scarce as hen's teeth. And buying ammo off the shelves? Depending on where we were in the latest cycle--forget it. Oh, you could find the odd box of Romanian or Russian ammo (if you could put up with the corrosion and spotty performance it caused) but top-shelf American stuff was, again depending on where we were in the cycle, nonexistent.

The numbers are staggering. A CNN article , dated June 4, 2021 , stated the following: "There is no government or national database of gun sales, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps track of pre-sale background checks, an indicator that’s been soaring to record highs.

In March, the FBI reported almost 4.7 million background checks – the most of any month since the agency started keeping track more than 20 years ago, and a whopping 77% increase over March 2019."

The interesting thing is that this report is just the tip of the iceberg; that 77% increase over March 2019 was just the LATEST increase. Background checks and resulting gun ownership has been skyrocketing in just about the same way for the past 14 years. Ther is no accurate count but I've seen estimates that, in the last 14 years, as many as one hundred MILLION guns have been sold to law-abiding Americans. That, folks, is one hell of a lot of guns.

Amazing! The histrionics of the anti-gun folks has done more to put guns into the hands of average Americans than any other one thing. Ever.

Ironic, isn't it?

[Taltarzac725]

Law-abiding people buying guns is not the problem. The problem is usually young men getting them so that they can go on shooting sprees. Everything under the sun should be attempted to stop these tragedies from happening. And I had neighbors across the street from me here in the Villages who lost their 14 year old granddaughter in one of these mass murders. (They moved out of the Villages to be near surviving family members). These should be covered by the press so that people will start taking actions to prevent them from continuing. Some gun controls are needed along with red flag laws and especially community awareness of potentials for problems. Empathy and planning for the future are critical.

I think the Founding Fathers would be doing similar things as they were very practical men very well versed in history especially Roman and Greek history.

There is a huge irony here.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, four things happen. 1). Media histrionics blow the entire thing up so out of proportion that it dominates the air and print media for weeks. Not just the shooting but of course vilifying the weapon, psychoanalyzing the shooter, and of course endless interviews of the bereaved, etc. etc. ad endless nauseam. Which then leads to 2). Copycat shooters. Studies have shown that anywhere from 50% to 80% of these shootings are copycat crimes. 1 and 2 together of course produces 3. Anti - Second Amendment political types which commandeer every camera, microphone and reporter within grabbing distance to thunder forth their HATRED OF ALL THINGS GUN and call for, in varying degrees, anything from limitation to outright banning of specific, or all, firearms.

But then comes 4. And 4 follows 1 through 3 as inevitably as water running downhill. Law-abiding folks buy up guns and ammunition like it was going out of style. Gun and ammo factories running 24/7/365 cannot keep up with the demand. This seemed to get into gear in all seriousness on about November 2008, which was the first real gun/ammo shortage I remember. And with each succeeding sequence of events 1 through 3, #4 seems to get worse. And not just guns and ammo; but reloading supplies as well. I did some reloading before coming here. New brass in the popular calibers was hard to find (fortunately I had a lot of old stuff) and magnum pistol primers were scarce as hen's teeth. And buying ammo off the shelves? Depending on where we were in the latest cycle--forget it. Oh, you could find the odd box of Romanian or Russian ammo (if you could put up with the corrosion and spotty performance it caused) but top-shelf American stuff was, again depending on where we were in the cycle, nonexistent.

The numbers are staggering. A CNN article , dated June 4, 2021 , stated the following: "There is no government or national database of gun sales, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps track of pre-sale background checks, an indicator that’s been soaring to record highs.

In March, the FBI reported almost 4.7 million background checks – the most of any month since the agency started keeping track more than 20 years ago, and a whopping 77% increase over March 2019."

The interesting thing is that this report is just the tip of the iceberg; that 77% increase over March 2019 was just the LATEST increase. Background checks and resulting gun ownership has been skyrocketing in just about the same way for the past 14 years. Ther is no accurate count but I've seen estimates that, in the last 14 years, as many as one hundred MILLION guns have been sold to law-abiding Americans. That, folks, is one hell of a lot of guns.

Amazing! The histrionics of the anti-gun folks has done more to put guns into the hands of average Americans than any other one thing. Ever.

Ironic, isn't it?

[Normal]

I bought my guns under existing laws. I have served my country honorably for 20 years and have done my best to conform to what benefits everyone. At this point I can tell you in my own mind, I will never give up what was lawfully purchased; it doesn’t matter if new laws are made to take them away. No one can just come in and change the rules at my expense. Society needs to fix the Dr. Spock mess they created and the media needs to stop attempting the manipulation of us all while pretending they don’t hype shootings for better ratings. Entertainment and news organizations are largely responsible for the whole mess. Problems continue to grow, but I can honestly say guns haven’t perpetuated it.

[ThirdOfFive]

I enjoyed this post (and others like it) because it was well written and it showed a slice of life ....growing up in rural MN. To me, that is the REAL VALUE of this forum ........to express past experiences that other readers can learn something from. I never lived in MN, but I could visualize 2 brothers using the woods and woodcraft as a learning experience - a free laboratory to study trees, animals, woods navigation, and weather ; to move about quietly and always in balance........until it turns into an exercise in meditation and introspection. While hunting you are always moving your eyes and looking keenly for movement.
......With respect to your father's rule #3 - I have often heard it this way.......one shot - 1 deer.....3 shots - no deer. This is why I wrote that some experienced hunters carry a single-shot rifle because the action is shorter making the overall length of the rifle shorter with the same barrel length as a longer bolt or semi auto action. That makes the rifle lighter and less clumsy to improve the hunter's movement. For deer, bear, elk, moose, and wild hogs there is normally only one shot and they are gone. It IS possible that a black or brown or polar bear, a wild hog, or a moose could charge a person, but that is unlikely. If that WERE to happen you would be better off with a rifle with a magazine.
.......With respect to your father's wisdom about being a good shot does NOT make you a good hunter. The hard part about hunting either with a gun, bow or even a camera, is to be able to MOVE through the woods in SLOW motion and quietly. Many people can not do that and that is where the meditation comes into play. And also increased concentration and awareness of surroundings. Once while bow hunting in western Oregon, I was in very thick woods where I could hear a herd of elk eating close to me, but the woods were so dense that I did not see them. I was moving very slowly and I was about to take a step forward when I stopped to look at a leaf because something did not seem right about that leaf. There was too much blue sky around it. I slowly moved a branch on my waist and moving it revealed a cliff drop of about 40 feet that I almost stumbled over. I have also almost stepped on a sleeping and curled-up rattlesnake on a path here in Fl. So, the bottom line is that the woods and hiking have many benefits that include forcing concentration and observation skills.
........One hobby that I enjoyed was trying to make my own bow. I even read a book on it by an Alaskan guide. It is a really big challenge. Even finding and seasoning the right wood is difficult. And supposedly making your own arrows is even more difficult using stone arrowheads and feathers, not plastic
.........I did go hog hunting once in Fl. My friend knew some rich people that had special swamp buggies built to hunt in swamps. I told the driver on the one I was in that there were some black animals that looked like wild hogs in the water about 500 yards away. He laughed at me and said, "no way. too big, that is some cattle". I said that I didn't think so. When we got closer he realized that I was right. They let out a bunch of dogs and the chase began. It ended up with one expert hog hunter holding the head of a 250 lb wild piece of muscle and me and my friend holding the back legs. The man in front was in a very dangerous position and he was tiring as he yelled at us to grab the back legs. They did not like to shoot the hog because that destroyed meat, so they used a much more dangerous method. I decided that day that once with that gang was enough for me, too dangerous. But, it did create a memory that I never forgot.
"With respect to your father's rule #3 - I have often heard it this way.......one shot - 1 deer.....3 shots - no deer. "

True.

Dear hunting back in Northern MN when I was a lad wa always done towards the middle of November, for nine days. Middle of November can get pretty cold up there (easily below zero some days) and sound carries well in those situations--on really cold mornings it was nothing to hear trains over 20 miles away. Opening day especially but other days as well were notorious for the steady sound of gunshots. We'd often hear BANG.....BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG. The stock comment was always "well, another one got away".

[ThirdOfFive]

Law-abiding people buying guns is not the problem. The problem is usually young men getting them so that they can go on shooting sprees. Everything under the sun should be attempted to stop these tragedies from happening. And I had neighbors across the street from me here in the Villages who lost their 14 year old granddaughter in one of these mass murders. (They moved out of the Villages to be near surviving family members). These should be covered by the press so that people will start taking actions to prevent them from continuing. Some gun controls are needed along with red flag laws and especially community awareness of potentials for problems. Empathy and planning for the future are critical.

I think the Founding Fathers would be doing similar things as they were very practical men very well versed in history especially Roman and Greek history.
We will never find the solution, until we're honest about the problem. And so far, we've not been.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.



Most of the above are considered "firearms" and therefore LEGAL according to FEDERAL law to possess. Each state has the right to limit them, but federally - they're legit. The others are considered "destructive devices," but not "firearms," and can be legally possessed with appropriate permits from ATF.

Because (which is what this topic is about) - most are considered "firearms," and the Constitution doesn't specify WHICH firearms citizens may or may not possess. And since the Constitution doesn't address "explosive devices," those devices don't even apply in this thread.

[ThirdOfFive]

Most of the above are considered "firearms" and therefore LEGAL according to FEDERAL law to possess. Each state has the right to limit them, but federally - they're legit. The others are considered "destructive devices," but not "firearms," and can be legally possessed with appropriate permits from ATF.

Because (which is what this topic is about) - most are considered "firearms," and the Constitution doesn't specify WHICH firearms citizens may or may not possess. And since the Constitution doesn't address "explosive devices," those devices don't even apply in this thread.
You can PURCHASE just about anything. Guy I knew back home had a Sherman Tank parked in his driveway, and a local pawnshop had a small field gun for sale ($5,000). Don't know if it worked or not but seemed to be all there; barrel was clear and even if it had been incapacitated I imagine someone knowledgeable about metalworking could get it back into firing condition pretty quick.

It is perfectly legal (and there are many for sale) to buy surplus fighter jets, many in flyable condition. Trade-A-Plane lists sever MiGs for sale, from $39,000 on up to several million for the newest models. Another source had a MiG-29 for sale for $5 million dollars in "like new" condition. 'Course, "flyable" upon purchase is one thing, but keeping them airworthy considering the probable cost of an annual inspection and prohibitive cost of replacement parts, assuming you can even find them for the older models, would be something else again.

[Taltarzac725]

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.

[Byte1]

I stated that my plan was ONLY ideal and would not fly in the US. I agree with hardening schools. And I wonder if giving the teachers rubber bullet guns would be helpful? That is only a suggestion. Or even flare pistols which would be somewhat effective and VERY inexpensive. And more teachers would be inclined to carry non-lethal weapons.

Rubber bullets? Flare guns? Surely, you jest?
Maybe rubber bullets would scare the bad guy away? Maybe a pop gun would be better?
Flare guns would be just great. Burn the school down while you burn the killer and all the students at the same time.
I thought this was a serious discussion about the second amendment.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

I think the Founding Fathers anticipated future generations pondering the meanings of various parts of the Constitution and provided a Supreme Court to interpret and rule when required.

[Taltarzac725]

I think the Founding Fathers anticipated future generations pondering the meanings of various parts of the Constitution and provided a Supreme Court to interpret and rule when required.

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.

[jimjamuser]

In response to a Sarah_W post. That was a pretty strange ATTEMPTED analogy. But, I have to admit, it was a GREAT DEFLECTION from the subject and my proposed solution. Incidentally, I would be happy with ANY serious SOLUTION put into law. The recent laws passed are too watered down to be worthwhile. I don't think that any rational person needs a 50-round magazine for hunting or any purpose or even for being a FINAL check and balance on a big, bad national government. Actually, if people would like to do something to keep government from going bat-defecation-crazy - I can suggest a much more sane approach.
......We all know that voting in a democracy is a powerful tool. Well, just make it more powerful by requiring every legitimate citizen to vote. That would make voting a MORE powerful tool than it is today in the US. Funny thing.......Australia does it that way (and probably New Zealand) - once again, as with gun laws improving citizen safety, Australia proves itself a superior place to live compared to the US (at least with respect to those 2 important features of life).

.........Remember, mass murder events are increasing in number. At this rate of increase, pretty soon everyone in the US and EVEN TV Land will know of a relative or friend that has been shot during a mass murder event. I would welcome any SOLUTION that would be as effective as stopping sales of semi-auto rifles in the US. And while it would be possible to harden some schools in some neighborhoods. It will be impossible to harden all schools, churches, high school football games, and other group gatherings - that will not be a practical solution. It is ALSO impossible to predict who will be a LUNATIC and turn into a murderer. Better and cheaper to reduce the number of semi-auto rifles in circulation. At this point ALL rifles and shotguns are not the problem, just a sub-set of rifles......namely the semi-automatic ones!

[Rapscallion St Croix]

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.

Only one wing considers the decisions unjust. The others gloat.

[Byte1]

Just an interesting thought. I recently received an email ad that advertised a Gatling Gun for about $6000 (I think, if memory serves). A Gatling Gun is NOT an automatic or even a semiautomatic weapon but is reported to be able to fire about 200 rounds per minute. If I still lived in my previous home, I think I would entertain the idea of purchasing one. Of course, I had my own firing range and steel knock down targets. I didn't need a tank because I already had a track vehicle with a blade mounted on the front for road work. The 2nd Amend is a wonderful Constitutional right that our fore fathers gave us and I hate to see folks exploit it in such a manner to jeopardize it's existence. I consider the 2nd Amend as a Fourth branch of our government, equal to Congress, Executive branch and the Supreme Court. Each fulfilling an equally weighted mandate to keep this country the most perfect experiment in the history of the world. This gives the "People" equal power in how this country progresses in the world. Just my opinion, of course.

[jimjamuser]

You have brought up "obscene" profits of the gun manufactures (more than once?) they sell guns because people want to own them, not as much for fear of a mass shooter but the run of the mill criminal that has little or no fear of punishment
I agree that home break-in is probably the main reason US people purchase guns (years ago it was for the sport of hunting)., I am saying that the profit margin on an AR-15-style weapon is MUCH greater than a hunting rifle. The gun manufacturers point their advertisement toward influencing gun buyers to DESIRE the more expensive, high-profit margin military-style weapons with expensive accessories like 30-round magazines. They have done this by creating the illusion that each gun owner's home will be attacked by a 20 man platoon of crazed, drug-infected, zombie home-burglar death squads - this provides the justification for the purchase of an expensive, "tricked-out" semi-automatic man-killing machines of death - plus they look "COOL" to the Butthead and Beavis reptilian mindset.

When in reality.......a short-barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon.........and relatively inexpensive.

[ThirdOfFive]

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.
If one believes the hype put forth by the 2nd Amendment critics, that the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws than are presently in force--then the solution is obvious. The Founding Fathers made sure that there is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. The process is no secret. In fact over the history of the document, 27 amendments have been ratified and thus became part of the Constitution.

Why don't the folks who are critical of the 2nd Amendment implement implement that process? Seems like the obvious answer considering what their criticisms are.

[Byte1]

I agree that home break-in is probably the main reason US people purchase guns (years ago it was for the sport of hunting)., I am saying that the profit margin on an AR-15-style weapon is MUCH greater than a hunting rifle. The gun manufacturers point their advertisement toward influencing gun buyers to DESIRE the more expensive, high-profit margin military-style weapons with expensive accessories like 30-round magazines. They have done this by creating the illusion that each gun owner's home will be attacked by a 20 man platoon of crazed, drug-infected, zombie home-burglar death squads - this provides the justification for the purchase of an expensive, "tricked-out" semi-automatic man-killing machines of death - plus they look "COOL" to the Butthead and Beavis reptilian mindset.

When in reality.......a short-barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon.........and relatively inexpensive.

"Reality?" Have you ever fired a shotgun inside a structure, such as a home? Yes, a shotgun is very effective. Yes, it is a very good self defense weapon. However, I hope you are prepared to refurbish your home afterward. I have personally seen how much damage a shotgun does in a home and how messy a body torn apart by a shotgun can be. Thank goodness I did not have to clean up the mess. And you are wrong regarding a shotgun NOT penetrating an interior wall. And I hope you do not have someone else in the house that you are firing that shotgun in when you fire it. Hopefully, you won't hit someone else because the pattern spreads as it moves away from the muzzle, as I am sure you KNOW since you seem to know so much about firearms. Perhaps, you would prefer to use rubber bullets on the intruder or a flare gun? :1rotfl: Personally, if I was better with my throwing arm, maybe I would chuck a few tomatoes to scare the bad guy away :duck:

[Blueblaze]

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem is that mass murder events are increasing and will continue to increase. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

We had no problem outlawing lunatics for 200 years before they emptied the asylums -- and then we started having monthly mass-murder events. It's called cause-and-effect. In fact, we had semi-automatic rifles with large magazine for 100 of those years, without mass-murder events.

It has been illegal for lunatics to have access to weapons for as long as there have been lunatics and weapons. Turns out, much like thugs and bank robbers, lunatics tend to ignore the law when they go off their nut.

The only people your laws impact are the people who obey the law. They aren't the ones shooting up grade schools, so why do you want to confiscate their constitutional rights?

Its simple math. There are about 400 million semi-automatic weapons in circulation, and only about 10,000 lunatics. Much easier to lock up the lunatics than to confiscate 400 million guns from law-abiding citizens, who you will soon discover will simply ignore your unconstitutional law.

[Taltarzac725]

The mentally ill are usually the targets of violence and not those who do it.


We had no problem outlawing lunatics for 200 years before they emptied the asylums -- and then we started having monthly mass-murder events. It's called cause-and-effect. In fact, we had semi-automatic rifles with large magazine for 100 of those years, without mass-murder events.

It has been illegal for lunatics to have access to weapons for as long as there have been lunatics and weapons. Turns out, much like thugs and bank robbers, lunatics tend to ignore the law when they go off their nut.

The only people your laws impact are the people who obey the law. They aren't the ones shooting up grade schools, so why do you want to confiscate their constitutional rights?

Its simple math. There are about 400 million semi-automatic weapons in circulation, and only about 10,000 lunatics. Much easier to lock up the lunatics than to confiscate 400 million guns from law-abiding citizens, who you will soon discover will simply ignore your unconstitutional law.

[jimjamuser]

We will never find the solution, until we're honest about the problem. And so far, we've not been.
We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

[jimjamuser]

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.
That was very thought provoking!

[Byte1]

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

We already went over the solution. You just don't agree to the answer. The solution to protecting the innocent and defenseless is to harden physical security. Cheaper than almost any other solution. Arming the teachers is not very feasible, as many do not like firearms, therefore probably not very gun-literate. However, in my opinion if one trusts teachers with the mental and physical safety of their children, why would they have a problem with a CCW qualified teacher carrying a firearm? Eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not stop murder. And if someone is naive enough to believe that banning certain types of guns will solve their problem, it won't and they are just living in a fantasy world. Once you ban one type of weapon, it only gives an opening to justify banning other weapons and then other types, etc. Yes, it would happen. Americans are not naive and know how an inch becomes a mile, especially/ESPECIALLY when it comes to overreach.
Remember, when one person can shoot 21 people with a bolt action rifle from a tall building, then banning certain type of weapons won't eliminate murder.

[ThirdOfFive]

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?
The solution cannot be all-or-nothing, as some seem to see it. I fail to see the logic in refusing to implement methods that would provably lessen the number of shootings, apparently in favor of "answers" that even the most strident opponents of the 2nd. Amendment acknowledge would take decades to implement--even if such a decision is reached and made law, which again, the opponents acknowledge has little chance of happening.

This has been suggested here and in other threads numerous times. Sensationalizing these shootings to the extent that media does, has been shown in study after study to cause "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary but many give a minimum of 50% to a maximum of 80% of these shootings are copycat; choice of weapon, choice of target, etc. have tragic similarities, time after time. We CAN limit the reporting to "just the facts". But we don't. We seem, as a society, to WANT the sensationalizing to happen, even though we know it will result in more dead kids.

No one has yet attempted to give a rational reason why we don't do this.

[jimjamuser]

Rubber bullets? Flare guns? Surely, you jest?
Maybe rubber bullets would scare the bad guy away? Maybe a pop gun would be better?
Flare guns would be just great. Burn the school down while you burn the killer and all the students at the same time.
I thought this was a serious discussion about the second amendment.
Most teachers are averse to carrying LETHAL firearms. A flare gun or a rubber bullet shot at an armed intruder could delay his killing of children long enough for some of them to escape and/or the Police show up or a Principal or school guard to get there with a LETHAL lead firing pistol or rifle.
Rubber bullets and flare pistols are NOT a joke - they are better than NOTHING, which most teachers say that they will be carrying ......nothing.
.......And I have talked to a few Police Officers that said that a separate gun loaded with rubber bullets MIGHT be good in certain situations. They were open to the idea. Many Officers are NOT thrilled with a foot chase with a suspected perpetrator and then the decision to shoot them in the back, or not.

[jimjamuser]

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.
Agreed. Can everyone say.......term limits?

[jimjamuser]

If one believes the hype put forth by the 2nd Amendment critics, that the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws than are presently in force--then the solution is obvious. The Founding Fathers made sure that there is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. The process is no secret. In fact over the history of the document, 27 amendments have been ratified and thus became part of the Constitution.

Why don't the folks who are critical of the 2nd Amendment implement implement that process? Seems like the obvious answer considering what their criticisms are.
I am not perfectly clear on the numbers, but I know for sure that enacting a NEW Amendment is a high (near impossible today) hurdle to get over. It needs something like 67 Senators to approve it. It would be hard to get 67 Senators to agree that the earth is round EVEN.

[jimjamuser]

We already went over the solution. You just don't agree to the answer. The solution to protecting the innocent and defenseless is to harden physical security. Cheaper than almost any other solution. Arming the teachers is not very feasible, as many do not like firearms, therefore probably not very gun-literate. However, in my opinion if one trusts teachers with the mental and physical safety of their children, why would they have a problem with a CCW qualified teacher carrying a firearm? Eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not stop murder. And if someone is naive enough to believe that banning certain types of guns will solve their problem, it won't and they are just living in a fantasy world. Once you ban one type of weapon, it only gives an opening to justify banning other weapons and then other types, etc. Yes, it would happen. Americans are not naive and know how an inch becomes a mile, especially/ESPECIALLY when it comes to overreach.
Remember, when one person can shoot 21 people with a bolt action rifle from a tall building, then banning certain type of weapons won't eliminate murder.
I gave my opinion earlier about hardening schools. Some schools might be hardened and it would be expensive and might require tax increases, which are like pulling teeth. Not all schools will be hardened. And neither can the US harden ALL high school football games, malls, churches, concerts, and other soft targets. That solution is SO weak that it is similar to "just not change anything because some people hate change" and will have little effect.

Australia and other countries have PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY that they LOWERED greatly the number of mass-murder events to close to ZERO. But US people are like the Australian bird with its head in the sand, with respect to ignoring the obvious solutions. The Australian bold and effective SOLUTION is RARELY mentioned on US TV. US people are adverse to change and are very ethnocentric ......to their own detriment.

True story.......During WW2 the US army carried its rifles (often loaded) on their shoulders with the barrel pointing upward. Australians carried their rifles on their shoulders with the barrel pointed downward. When asked by Americans why they did such a STUPID thing. The Aussies just laughed and said that it is better to shoot yourself in the foot than in the head!

[jimjamuser]

"Reality?" Have you ever fired a shotgun inside a structure, such as a home? Yes, a shotgun is very effective. Yes, it is a very good self defense weapon. However, I hope you are prepared to refurbish your home afterward. I have personally seen how much damage a shotgun does in a home and how messy a body torn apart by a shotgun can be. Thank goodness I did not have to clean up the mess. And you are wrong regarding a shotgun NOT penetrating an interior wall. And I hope you do not have someone else in the house that you are firing that shotgun in when you fire it. Hopefully, you won't hit someone else because the pattern spreads as it moves away from the muzzle, as I am sure you KNOW since you seem to know so much about firearms. Perhaps, you would prefer to use rubber bullets on the intruder or a flare gun? :1rotfl: Personally, if I was better with my throwing arm, maybe I would chuck a few tomatoes to scare the bad guy away :duck:
Well, I do know a few things about firearms and a very SIMPLE KNOWN fact is that the pellets from a shotgun do NOT, definitely NOT, BEGIN spreading out at the end of the barrel. That is because from about 1960 on most, if not all, shotgun shells are made with the pellets enclosed in a PLASTIC cup. This was designed to give any given shotgun a LONGER range - duck and pheasant hunters LOVED the improvement.

The shot charge moves as one mass (of lead pellets and plastic cup) for about 20 yards and then the pellets begin to spread out in a conical pattern. The choke of the shotgun also has a slight influence. Less than most people think.
.......as far as using a shotgun for home defense goes - one needs to be aware of the shot pellet size - 00 is used for killing deer - number 2 or 4 for geese and turkey - number 6 or 7.5 for pheasant - number 8 for doves and quail.
So, the 00 shot could penetrate drywall, but would lose a lot of energy doing it. Personally, I would choose about number 5 shot for home defense. And personally, I don't see much difference in the amount of danger caused by an erratic shot for a family member in another room BETWEEN a shotgun and an AR-15 type rifle chambered for a .223 cartridge. And the same thing for a pistol cartridge. Of those options, I would think that the shotgun would be somewhat safer.

[Sarah_W]

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.

Our third President, Thomas Jefferson would disagree. He was not present for the debates and drafting of the Constitution because Congress had sent him to Paris. He was indeed aware and eventually received a copy in Paris. Below is his letter to John Adam's son-in-law, William Stephens Smith.

****

To William Stephens Smith
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

Dear Sir
I am now to acknolege the receipt of your favors of October the 4th. 8th. and 26th. In the last you apologize for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to shew civilities to all the Americans who come here, and who will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, and how far I may go in my attentions to them.

—Can you send me Woodmason’s bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la fayette, and the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article.

—I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying.

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.—You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers.—The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform. Present my respects to Mrs. Smith, and be assured of the sincere esteem of Dear Sir Your friend & servant,
Th: Jefferson

****
I've bolded the pertinent parts. I'm not advocating for a rebellion or revolution but would never suggest we surrender our ability to do exactly that. When I hear talk of banning firearms that We The People have had for 65 years in our private possession, I begin to wonder about motive. When statistics are manipulated to instill panic ignorant, I begin to wonder about motive. By ignorant, I mean the very definition of the word "to be lacking in knowledge or awareness".

I see people lament that AR styled rifles are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, but when you educate them as to the facts, according to the authorities, and the next day they are back to their previous claim it goes beyond ignorance. When I educate someone and they continue to ignore the facts, that is a blocked mind with an opinion not worth the effort to hear or read. Brainwashed is what some people say.

Bans on such rifles have absolutely nothing to do with keeping We The People safe.

Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were writing when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The men in that room weren't talking about the next Turkey Shoot or 3 Gun Competition. They were talking about how to keep their posterity free and ensure Liberty for generations. Regardless of whether or not you choose to exercise a Right, you should never surrender it.

[Sarah_W]

In response to a Sarah_W post. That was a pretty strange ATTEMPTED analogy. But, I have to admit, it was a GREAT DEFLECTION from the subject and my proposed solution.

My example and solution were no stranger than yours. Do us all a favor and start your own thread on Mass Shootings or whatever you wish. The subject of this thread is the Founding Fathers, not your current lamentations. I personally don't want to see this thread get locked because you can't stay on topic.

[Tvflguy]

I was breezing thru some responses. No offense, but why do some simply HAVE to write a novella? Personally I don’t have the interest, no matter the topic, to spend that time reading all that. Yikes

[Taltarzac725]

Banning guns would wind up like the Prohibition where organized crime kingpins got rich filling the void made.

Trying to keep things shorter.

[Byte1]

Most teachers are averse to carrying LETHAL firearms. A flare gun or a rubber bullet shot at an armed intruder could delay his killing of children long enough for some of them to escape and/or the Police show up or a Principal or school guard to get there with a LETHAL lead firing pistol or rifle.
Rubber bullets and flare pistols are NOT a joke - they are better than NOTHING, which most teachers say that they will be carrying ......nothing.
.......And I have talked to a few Police Officers that said that a separate gun loaded with rubber bullets MIGHT be good in certain situations. They were open to the idea. Many Officers are NOT thrilled with a foot chase with a suspected perpetrator and then the decision to shoot them in the back, or not.

Yes, rubber bullets and a flare gun really IS a joke. Rubber bullets are only used in NON-lethal situations such as riot control. NOT/NOT/NOT in mass murder situations. Get it? A flare gun? I really thought you were kidding. Seriously??? A flare gun is worse than a shotgun in a classroom. Do you want the school to burn down? Do you know how hot flares are? Do you even know off hand what chemicals are in the flare? Go ahead and Google it. NO law enforcement officer will tell you that a school teacher should confront a mental case possessing a firearm, with the teacher aiming a gun with a rubber bullet. Wow! If a teacher is willing to defend the children with a gun loaded with rubber bullets, then he/she is willing to fire a REAL firearm with lethal bullets. A teacher is willing to throw themselves down in front of a child to protect them like he/she was one of their own, so I know they would use whatever is available. I am not saying that they should even use a weapon, unless they were comfortable with firearms and trained to carry one legally. I would rather that the school was fortified so that the bad guy could not get in, in the first place. Worrying about the kids after the bad guy is in, is the same as worrying about the horses after the barn is on fire.

[Byte1]

Sorry, answering a diversion was no better than diverting from the subject. The subject that we should be addressing is the Founders and their thoughts regarding the 2nd Amend. And Sarah answered with many quotes from our Founders. I doubt any anti-gun folks will admit the totally blatant evidence as to what was the reasoning behind the Amend, so there will always be diversion from the facts staring them right in the eyes.
Like many have said in the past, the gov should fear the people, not the people should fear the gov. Let's keep it that way.

[Veiragirl]

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-History-Rifle-Weapon-Changed/dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

So were the people

[Sarah_W]

I am not perfectly clear on the numbers, but I know for sure that enacting a NEW Amendment is a high (near impossible today) hurdle to get over. It needs something like 75 Senators to approve it. It would be hard to get 75 Senators to agree that the earth is round EVEN.

The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in the world and the framework of the freest nation in the world. it should be very difficult to amend it. Go here to understand the process: Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)

It is astounding to me that for the first time in the history of our nation activists are fighting to take away Rights instead of fighting to procure Rights.

[Blueblaze]

The mentally ill are usually the targets of violence and not those who do it.

Yes, they are. Yet another reason to lock them up.

The one thing we can be sure of is, 100% of mass-murder events are perpetrated by lunatics, not law-abiding, self-sufficient citizens.

[jimjamuser]

My example and solution were no stranger than yours. Do us all a favor and start your own thread on Mass Shootings or whatever you wish. The subject of this thread is the Founding Fathers, not your current lamentations. I personally don't want to see this thread get locked because you can't stay on topic.
The 2nd amendment has to do with guns. All the people posting on this thread are talking about MODERN guns, not flintlock black powder guns - and the implications of modern guns on modern society. I am just drifting within the mainstream of the flow of the waters of this thread. I fail to see how it is that I am some outlier responsible for the terrible things that I am being accused of. I have been nice and polite to everyone commenting on this thread!

[jimjamuser]

Banning guns would wind up like the Prohibition where organized crime kingpins got rich filling the void made.

Trying to keep things shorter.
Personally, I like the idea of citizens owning guns because the small % of people that are burglars can not be sure which homeowner owns them and which do not. I merely, personally, find things like silencers and 30 or 50-round magazines to be unnecessary OVERKILL (no pun intended). Personally, I think that the unlikely chance of the US having a tyrannical government that is so bad that it can't be controlled by votes - and needs a counter-revolution.......to be so SLIM - that I feel confident that I could use a bolt-action rifle to express myself, I don't need a semi-automatic war machine for that.

And if the US were invaded by Russia and/or China, the situation would be more like the "Red Dawn" movie. The high school kids started out with hunting rifles and worked their way up. Any local resistance would start out low-tech. Even the survivalist types that expect a doomsday scenario - the ones that bury guns in their backyard, put in the cheap bolt action military surplus weapons, not the new $ 3,000 AR-15 type rifles.

[jimjamuser]

Yes, rubber bullets and a flare gun really IS a joke. Rubber bullets are only used in NON-lethal situations such as riot control. NOT/NOT/NOT in mass murder situations. Get it? A flare gun? I really thought you were kidding. Seriously??? A flare gun is worse than a shotgun in a classroom. Do you want the school to burn down? Do you know how hot flares are? Do you even know off hand what chemicals are in the flare? Go ahead and Google it. NO law enforcement officer will tell you that a school teacher should confront a mental case possessing a firearm, with the teacher aiming a gun with a rubber bullet. Wow! If a teacher is willing to defend the children with a gun loaded with rubber bullets, then he/she is willing to fire a REAL firearm with lethal bullets. A teacher is willing to throw themselves down in front of a child to protect them like he/she was one of their own, so I know they would use whatever is available. I am not saying that they should even use a weapon, unless they were comfortable with firearms and trained to carry one legally. I would rather that the school was fortified so that the bad guy could not get in, in the first place. Worrying about the kids after the bad guy is in, is the same as worrying about the horses after the barn is on fire.
The teachers and their unions all across America have stated OUTRIGHT that they do NOT want to carry lethal firearms into the classroom. They won't be forced to do that.

[jimjamuser]

Sorry, answering a diversion was no better than diverting from the subject. The subject that we should be addressing is the Founders and their thoughts regarding the 2nd Amend. And Sarah answered with many quotes from our Founders. I doubt any anti-gun folks will admit the totally blatant evidence as to what was the reasoning behind the Amend, so there will always be diversion from the facts staring them right in the eyes.
Like many have said in the past, the gov should fear the people, not the people should fear the gov. Let's keep it that way.
I agree with the last sentence.

[Taltarzac725]

John Locke - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke)

It does seem like the Founding Fathers were influenced a great deal by the writings of John Locke.

[Sarah_W]

The 2nd amendment has to do with guns. All the people posting on this thread are talking about MODERN guns, not flintlock black powder guns - and the implications of modern guns on modern society. I am just drifting within the mainstream of the flow of the waters of this thread. I fail to see how it is that I am some outlier responsible for the terrible things that I am being accused of. I have been nice and polite to everyone commenting on this thread!

Jim, I'm not saying you aren't nice nor polite. As you noted, the thread is about the 2nd Amendment and the definition of "arms" as the Founding Fathers meant "arms". It is not about mass shootings, school shootings etc. That is the point. Why not start a new thread on your topic. I will happily contribute.

[Reiver]

The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in the world and the framework of the freest nation in the world. it should be very difficult to amend it. Go here to understand the process: Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)

It is astounding to me that for the first time in the history of our nation activists are fighting to take away Rights instead of fighting to procure Rights.

Please try to stay on topic. We are discussing what Arms are, not how to amend the constitution.

[Reiver]

The 2nd amendment has to do with guns. All the people posting on this thread are talking about MODERN guns, not flintlock black powder guns - and the implications of modern guns on modern society. I am just drifting within the mainstream of the flow of the waters of this thread. I fail to see how it is that I am some outlier responsible for the terrible things that I am being accused of. I have been nice and polite to everyone commenting on this thread!

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Austria-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design almost 140 years ago in 1885.
Why are these antique weapons suddenly a modern problem?

[Lindsyburnsy]

“Well regulated militia”. Not the fools that need to carry assault weapons to Walmart.

[Sarah_W]

“Well regulated militia”. Not the fools that need to carry assault weapons to Walmart.

When did that happen and what is an assault weapon?

Our Founding Fathers knew a government can't take away the peoples Rights until you disarm them. That simple statement has been true throughout history and true today the world over. In countries such as North Korea, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Lebanon, Poland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and many more, a person can be imprisoned for criticizing the government.

A well armed citizenry can only be pushed so far, as we saw on April 19, 1775 in our country. A government can't enslave it's well armed people, as stated July 4, 1776. A well armed society will draw a line that can't be crossed. That is the only failsafe for a free society. Every holocaust in history was preceded by disarming the people who became the focus of that holocaust. History teaches us valuable lessons.

[Taltarzac725]

Marlin Model Golden 39A - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_Golden_39A)

Annie Oakley involvement
On March 10, 1893 Annie Oakley used a Model 1891 to put 25 shots through one jagged hole in 27 seconds at a distance of 36 feet (12 yds or 11 m) using 22 short cartridges. On the same day she also produced another jagged one-hole group through the center of an Ace of Hearts playing card, while shooting off-hand.[5] Marlin has since made two "special runs" of Annie Oakley commemorative 39A rifles to honor Oakley's achievements and fame while using their brand. The first consisted of 500 39A rifles in 1998 which were offered to the general public with another 100 offered only to their employees. In 2000 another run of the special AO guns was made for Davidson's Gallery of Guns again offered to the general public.

I had one of these or something like it when a 13 year old in Reno, Nevada. This was back around 1972. I could hit a soda can at 50 feet with practice but that is about all.

There are many such arms that would be very useful for home defense. But I do not see even someone like Annie Oakley doing much against tanks, helicopters, mines, destroyers off shore, jets, heavy artillery, missiles, etc. which a government would have.

[ThirdOfFive]

Personally, I like the idea of citizens owning guns because the small % of people that are burglars can not be sure which homeowner owns them and which do not. I merely, personally, find things like silencers and 30 or 50-round magazines to be unnecessary OVERKILL (no pun intended). Personally, I think that the unlikely chance of the US having a tyrannical government that is so bad that it can't be controlled by votes - and needs a counter-revolution.......to be so SLIM - that I feel confident that I could use a bolt-action rifle to express myself, I don't need a semi-automatic war machine for that.

And if the US were invaded by Russia and/or China, the situation would be more like the "Red Dawn" movie. The high school kids started out with hunting rifles and worked their way up. Any local resistance would start out low-tech. Even the survivalist types that expect a doomsday scenario - the ones that bury guns in their backyard, put in the cheap bolt action military surplus weapons, not the new $ 3,000 AR-15 type rifles.
"And if the US were invaded by Russia and/or China, the situation would be more like the "Red Dawn" movie. The high school kids started out with hunting rifles and worked their way up. Any local resistance would start out low-tech. Even the survivalist types that expect a doomsday scenario - the ones that bury guns in their backyard, put in the cheap bolt action military surplus weapons, not the new $ 3,000 AR-15 type rifles."

I expect that would be the case in just about all instances where a resident population decides to throw off oppression, be it internal or from an outside threat. The people, and the powers, that intend to do the oppressing rarely if ever embark upon that path without preparing...by arming themselves, disarming their intended (for want of a better word) targets, or (usually) both.

Lots of examples out there, but a really good one is Afghanistan. The Afghans threw off the Soviet yoke with pretty primitive weapons considering the resources of their oppressors. Took 'em ten years to do it, but in the end the Soviet Union decided that the gain wasn't worth the cost, and left.

Pretty much that way here too, at least for the first couple of years of the Revolution. The Colonial rebels had their arms and wherewithall to keep them: a lot of people don't know that the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep the British from destroying colonial arms stores, but the British had the big guns, the ships, and in comparison a huge advantage in overall power. They ended up going the way of the Soviets in Afghanistan in large part because the colonials avoided the European-style battles with the British, preferring instead the hit-and-run tactics of leaders like Francis Marion, whose guerilla tactics allowed him to harass and in the end help defeat much larger British forces.

Revolutions are not won with overwhelming force of arms but with overwhelming persistence in the face of that force.

[jimjamuser]

Jim, I'm not saying you aren't nice nor polite. As you noted, the thread is about the 2nd Amendment and the definition of "arms" as the Founding Fathers meant "arms". It is not about mass shootings, school shootings etc. That is the point. Why not start a new thread on your topic. I will happily contribute.
Personally, I have never started a thread and I never even read about how to do it - because normally I only wake up early at 5 AM if my house is on fire, to go to the bathroom, to have a heart attack, or to watch the beginning of WW3. There should have been multiple threads already this year because of the serious nature of the problem, but there haven't been any that I remember (someone may correct me if I missed one). Mass murders are around 360 year to date, which is a record. And last year was also a record. They are increasing and the public all across the US want a SOLUTION. A councilman in Uvalde was on TV saying that, at minimum, the Governor or at the Federal level should raise the age for purchase of AR-15 style weapons to 21. The Texas governor CLAIMED? that the sole answer was to somehow nebulously improve mental health (a concept ripped out of the pages of NRA dogma). Which basically translates to ........"do nothing and don't rock the boat".

....... In general, it is hard to know how narrow or wide the answers to a thread should go. It seemed to me that most posters interpreted the thread to be a discussion of the 2nd Amendment and its implications on MODERN America and not so much about how Jefferson or Franklin thought about it. And as far as I have heard, the 2nd Amendment is worded very loosely, which gives rise to various interpretations. I am not a Colonial History scholar. Last time I had to concentrate on it was in 6th grade for an upcoming History test. Even the last time that I watched the History Channel was about 3 years ago - there was a good dramatic series about French and English settlers near Quebec along the St, Lawrence River. But, I can see that it means MUCH more to various posters here in TV Land - so I applaud that !

....The only thing that I could add to a discussion of Colonial times and the Revolutionary war - involves the guns used. The British carried SMOOTHBORE black powder flintlocks designed for war and fast reloading (more like less slow). That worked well in the OLD world and also their infantry tactics. The American revolutionaries fought a different style. They carried basically hunting rifles with RIFLED barrels which were more accurate than the smoothbore barrels of the British.. And put more deer and turkey meat on the table. Because of this basic difference in rifles, the Colonial revolutionaries developed a "shoot and scoot" technique where they used trees as cover and took advantage of their somewhat-more accurate at longer ranges-rifle......they were somewhat like snipers. That's all I know about Colonial History.

[jimjamuser]

The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in the world and the framework of the freest nation in the world. it should be very difficult to amend it. Go here to understand the process: Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)

It is astounding to me that for the first time in the history of our nation activists are fighting to take away Rights instead of fighting to procure Rights.
I could be wrong about this. But, years ago I remember reading that much of the US Constitution was taken from a Constitution of one of the Native American tribes living in the Northeast.....maybe the Algonquin Tribe? I don't know this for a fact, I am just throwing the ball to the experts here.

[jimjamuser]

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Austria-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design almost 140 years ago in 1885.
Why are these antique weapons suddenly a modern problem?
Well, it is NOT a big problem in most 1st world countries, only the US. So, we have a serious modern problem that is getting WORSE !

[jimjamuser]

“Well regulated militia”. Not the fools that need to carry assault weapons to Walmart.
And that problem is likely to get worse.

[jimjamuser]

When did that happen and what is an assault weapon?

Our Founding Fathers knew a government can't take away the peoples Rights until you disarm them. That simple statement has been true throughout history and true today the world over. In countries such as North Korea, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Lebanon, Poland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and many more, a person can be imprisoned for criticizing the government.

A well armed citizenry can only be pushed so far, as we saw on April 19, 1775 in our country. A government can't enslave it's well armed people, as stated July 4, 1776. A well armed society will draw a line that can't be crossed. That is the only failsafe for a free society. Every holocaust in history was preceded by disarming the people who became the focus of that holocaust. History teaches us valuable lessons.
I agree that it would be incredibly terrible if the US citizens were disarmed. We all agree on that. I am talking about a SOLUTION to the increasing shootings like in Uvalde. US citizens of good faith should be able to come to a compromise situation that retains the right to bear arms (which I agree with) and the rights of citizens NOT to be gunned down like rodents as they conduct their daily lives. Going to bolt-action as Australia and other countries have done does NOT constitute disarming citizens - it just means slowing down the demented murderers so that Police or school Officers or civilians even have the time to thwart the attack. It gives potential innocent victims, both children and adults, time to run away and SURVIVE. Everyone wants to survive.

[Byte1]

The teachers and their unions all across America have stated OUTRIGHT that they do NOT want to carry lethal firearms into the classroom. They won't be forced to do that.

Read my post again. I did not say anything about forcing teachers to carry firearms. And yet, you want them to carry "firearms" to shoot rubber bullets at someone that is carrying a "lethal firearm" and shooting children. And you want them to shoot "flares" in the classroom and put children in danger of being burned to death.

[jimjamuser]

Marlin Model Golden 39A - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_Golden_39A)



I had one of these or something like it when a 13 year old in Reno, Nevada. This was back around 1972. I could hit a soda can at 50 feet with practice but that is about all.

There are many such arms that would be very useful for home defense. But I do not see even someone like Annie Oakley doing much against tanks, helicopters, mines, destroyers off shore, jets, heavy artillery, missiles, etc. which a government would have.
Yes, individual rifles would be useless against heavy armored Army equipment. But I can imagine more of a guerrilla conflict against a tyrannical government - more like the movie "Red Dawn".

[jimbomaybe]

Marlin Model Golden 39A - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_Golden_39A)



I had one of these or something like it when a 13 year old in Reno, Nevada. This was back around 1972. I could hit a soda can at 50 feet with practice but that is about all.

There are many such arms that would be very useful for home defense. But I do not see even someone like Annie Oakley doing much against tanks, helicopters, mines, destroyers off shore, jets, heavy artillery, missiles, etc. which a government would have.
With all due respect that is a speeches argument , the ability of the governed to oppose the government is taken away long before the use of heavy weapons in armed military assault on the civilian population would occur as demonstrated in countries listed in other posts. History seems to demonstrate that unarming of the population is the first step down the road to an oppressive government. It's within living history a time when the availability of semi automatic military weapons were easily obtainable and "mass shootings" were just about unheard of. would this not strongly suggest that the problem is more "sociological" than availability of weapons?
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think he was talking about a taxation issue but the logic hold here as well

[Byte1]

Until you can prove to me that the 2nd Amend RESTRICTS ownership of firearms, AND prove to me that more folks are killed by firearms than saved by firearms in this country, I will adamantly support any means for American citizens to own firearms legally. I do not care about what some folks "believe" the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights "meant." If you want the RIGHTS of the citizens to change, then do it legally. If you wish to eliminate the cars on the road so that children can play in the streets, then do so legally.
I have stated my opinion that children should be protected by hardening physical security of the schools. There are certain folks in this country that simply wish to ban guns, period. If it was their way, they would also ban churches because they do not agree with religion. Sorry, but if you wish to protect the children then do it properly instead of using children to further the gun ban cause. Banning guns will only make millions of criminals in this country, because they will NOT give them up.
The 2nd Amend does not stipulate what type of gun a citizen may own. You do not know what they were thinking when they said that the gov shall not take that right away. If you do not like the law, then vote to change it. If you don't have enough votes then accept it, that the majority rules even if we have representatives of the majority that make the rules.

[Byte1]

duplicate

[Taltarzac725]

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/protests-insurrection-and-second-amendment)

I just do not buy the Founding Fathers would want a bunch of citizens armed with weapons that are meant for the world's battlefields and not for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets.

[Taltarzac725]

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/protests-insurrection-and-second-amendment)

I just do not buy the Founding Fathers would want a bunch of citizens armed with weapons that are meant for the battlefields and not for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets.

[jimjamuser]

With all due respect that is a speeches argument , the ability of the governed to oppose the government is taken away long before the use of heavy weapons in armed military assault on the civilian population would occur as demonstrated in countries listed in other posts. History seems to demonstrate that unarming of the population is the first step down the road to an oppressive government. It's within living history a time when the availability of semi automatic military weapons were easily obtainable and "mass shootings" were just about unheard of. would this not strongly suggest that the problem is more "sociological" than availability of weapons?
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think he was talking about a taxation issue but the logic hold here as well
With respect to mass shootings........the Trend is not your Friend. Meaning that they have been increasing greatly in recent years. Also, there has been a big increase in general crime and violent crime. There is one possible theory or future possibility that is positive. It is possible and some experts have stated that the recent Pandemic has caused so much mental anxiety that more younger males have started "acting out" their built-up violent tendencies. IF, big IF this is true, and Covid cases continue to be MILD even though increasing - at some future time maybe after 5 years - mass shootings may drop back to pre- Covid levels. That would be a very positive improvement.

Unfortunately, then the problem becomes that even at the pre-Covid level, mass murder events would be too high. Especially in comparison to most or all other 1st world countries. The gun total in the US averages out to 1.2 guns per person, by a whopping margin, the most in the world. That number is also increasing, and will likely make the US less stable as a society, not more stable.

The NRA and gun topic magazines, about 1980 went from being all about hunting to being like a "solder of fortune" propaganda media devoted to extolling man-killing guns like the AR-15 and its various copies. I have even seen articles about 50-caliber long-range sniper rifles and how "wonderful" they are to own - then you throw in 30-round magazines, silencers, and those "wonderful" bump stock rifles that now legally give impressionable young males access to an automatic rifle ......as if the semi-autos are NOT man-killing enough for the TRUE deviate !

These magazines can be found on shelves at Walmart everywhere - it is like propaganda for gun porn and implied violence. These magazines and gun makers are pushing guns and bizarre accessories that are stoking violence in a violent period and in a country with a history of violence !

Today the US is struggling to find a BALANCE between the legitimate right to bear arms and the excessive availability of guns intended and designed for the Military and the Police.

[jimjamuser]

double post, sorry

[biker1]

We don’t send our soldiers to the battlefield with semi-automatic rifles and citizens, except for the very few who have Federal permits, don’t have automatic rifles. We do, however, send our soldiers to the battlefield with automatic rifles (bolt action and semi-automatic sniper rifles notwithstanding). Semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns make up the majority (vast) of weapons that citizens buy. Pretty much every handgun, except for the very few single-action revolvers, are semi-automatic (I’m including double action revolvers).


Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/protests-insurrection-and-second-amendment)

I just do not buy the Founding Fathers would want a bunch of citizens armed with weapons that are meant for the battlefields and not for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets.

[Byte1]

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/protests-insurrection-and-second-amendment)

I just do not buy the Founding Fathers would want a bunch of citizens armed with weapons that are meant for the world's battlefields and not for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets.

OH? Do you have some quotes from the Founders that support what your opinion?

[Sarah_W]

The original subject of this thread was what our Founding Fathers considered to be arms.

I understand that a lot of folks wish to talk about mass killings. So, I've started another thread where we can have an honest conversation about mass murder events.

[Byte1]

With respect to mass shootings........the Trend is not your Friend. Meaning that they have been increasing greatly in recent years. Also, there has been a big increase in general crime and violent crime. There is one possible theory or future possibility that is positive. It is possible and some experts have stated that the recent Pandemic has caused so much mental anxiety that more younger males have started "acting out" their built-up violent tendencies. IF, big IF this is true, and Covid cases continue to be MILD even though increasing - at some future time maybe after 5 years - mass shootings may drop back to pre- Covid levels. That would be a very positive improvement.

Unfortunately, then the problem becomes that even at the pre-Covid level, mass murder events would be too high. Especially in comparison to most or all other 1st world countries. The gun total in the US averages out to 1.2 guns per person, by a whopping margin, the most in the world. That number is also increasing, and will likely make the US less stable as a society, not more stable.

The NRA and gun topic magazines, about 1980 went from being all about hunting to being like a "solder of fortune" propaganda media devoted to extolling man-killing guns like the AR-15 and its various copies. I have even seen articles about 50-caliber long-range sniper rifles and how "wonderful" they are to own - then you throw in 30-round magazines, silencers, and those "wonderful" bump stock rifles that now legally give impressionable young males access to an automatic rifle ......as if the semi-autos are NOT man-killing enough for the TRUE deviate !

These magazines can be found on shelves at Walmart everywhere - it is like propaganda for gun porn and implied violence. These magazines and gun makers are pushing guns and bizarre accessories that are stoking violence in a violent period and in a country with a history of violence !

Today the US is struggling to find a BALANCE between the legitimate right to bear arms and the excessive availability of guns intended and designed for the Military and the Police.

How many 50cal rifles have been used for mass shootings in America? My brother and my son-inlaw use a 58cal muzzle loader for hunting deer.

Can you tell me which Walmart sells guns and ammo magazines around here? I have been looking for a good deal on rifle and pistol supplies and have only found Rural King to have decent deals.

If America is too harsh and violent and Australia is so great for some.....sounds like it is time to migrate. Personally, I feel safe here. I totally support the 2nd Amend and find it to be a useful tool for American citizens safety. You cannot depend on a very small law enforcement presence and most of the time they can't do anything until a crime has already been committed. You can't get rid of evil by taking defense away from honest, good citizens. Just because some on here are scared of the big bang guns, that doesn't mean that everyone else should coddle their fear. The 2nd Amend allows us to have firearms, period. There is nothing in it detailing what type are allowed. I do not care what some "think" or "feel" is logical to them as for what can or cannot be owned by good American citizens.

[ThirdOfFive]

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/protests-insurrection-and-second-amendment)

I just do not buy the Founding Fathers would want a bunch of citizens armed with weapons that are meant for the battlefields and not for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets.
With all due respect, weapons "for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets." were a given at the time our nation came into being. A gun was a survival tool as much as hoes, spades, and axes were survival tools. It would have made as much (or as little) sense for the founders to amend the Constitution so that the right to own an ax was enshrined as a constitutional right.

Every right in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people from government overreach. It is sophism on steroids to try to argue that the Second Amendment is any different.

[jimjamuser]

How many 50cal rifles have been used for mass shootings in America? My brother and my son-inlaw use a 58cal muzzle loader for hunting deer.

Can you tell me which Walmart sells guns and ammo magazines around here? I have been looking for a good deal on rifle and pistol supplies and have only found Rural King to have decent deals.

If America is too harsh and violent and Australia is so great for some.....sounds like it is time to migrate. Personally, I feel safe here. I totally support the 2nd Amend and find it to be a useful tool for American citizens safety. You cannot depend on a very small law enforcement presence and most of the time they can't do anything until a crime has already been committed. You can't get rid of evil by taking defense away from honest, good citizens. Just because some on here are scared of the big bang guns, that doesn't mean that everyone else should coddle their fear. The 2nd Amend allows us to have firearms, period. There is nothing in it detailing what type are allowed. I do not care what some "think" or "feel" is logical to them as for what can or cannot be owned by good American citizens.
The gun magazines that I talked about in my 3rd paragraph are gun magazines devoted to the topic of guns (the paper kind that you read), not the steel kind that hold cartridge rounds. Walmart does have those in their reading magazine area.

[Taltarzac725]

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/)

Worth a look.

[ThirdOfFive]

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/)

Worth a look.
I enjoy reading The Atlantic. Well-written articles always. I don't agree with all of them, but if I did I wouldn't bother reading it. I don't need an echo.

[ThirdOfFive]

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/)

Worth a look.
I enjoy reading The Atlantic. Well-written articles always. I don't agree with all of them, but if I did I wouldn't bother reading it. I don't need an echo.

IN essence, though, we're arguing something that has already been decided. Whatever the wishes of part of the population, the other part is already very well-armed, and ready to defend their freedom and way of life, should it ever come to that. And nothing we're arguing about here, or anywhere, will change that.

[Taltarzac725]

I enjoy reading The Atlantic. Well-written articles always. I don't agree with all of them, but if I did I wouldn't bother reading it. I don't need an echo.

IN essence, though, we're arguing something that has already been decided. Whatever the wishes of part of the population, the other part is already very well-armed, and ready to defend their freedom and way of life, should it ever come to that. And nothing we're arguing about here, or anywhere, will change that.


Law and order would change that. Basically overthrowing the government is sedition. It is against the law.

18 U.S. Code SS 2384 - Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384)

[ThirdOfFive]

Law and order would change that. Basically overthrowing the government is sedition. It is against the law.

18 U.S. Code SS 2384 - Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384)
If law and order prevailed in this country, defending freedoms through force would not even be considered.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

With all due respect, weapons "for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets." were a given at the time our nation came into being. A gun was a survival tool as much as hoes, spades, and axes were survival tools. It would have made as much (or as little) sense for the founders to amend the Constitution so that the right to own an ax was enshrined as a constitutional right.

Every right in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people from government overreach. It is sophism on steroids to try to argue that the Second Amendment is any different.

And yet, that is EXACTLY what was intended by the Second Amendment. At the time there was no standing army. So there was no army gear. No army uniforms, no army weapons, no army vehicles or stables for mounted soldiers. People joined to defend their country using their own weapons. 2A guaranteed they had the right to do so.

[Normal]

And yet, that is EXACTLY what was intended by the Second Amendment. At the time there was no standing army. So there was no army gear. No army uniforms, no army weapons, no army vehicles or stables for mounted soldiers. People joined to defend their country using their own weapons. 2A guaranteed they had the right to do so.

May I clarify? The first US military was established by congress in Sept 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in December of 1791. You can Google it if you wish, but I taught Social Studies for many years in addition to many other hats and I can tell you this for certain.

[Taltarzac725]

May I clarify? The first US military was established by congress in Sept 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in December of 1791. You can Google it if you wish, but I taught Social Studies for many years in addition to many other hats and I can tell you this for certain.


Good to know.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

May I clarify? The first US military was established by congress in Sept 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in December of 1791. You can Google it if you wish, but I taught Social Studies for many years in addition to many other hats and I can tell you this for certain.

I stand corrected. The military was officially established in 1789. And then the government said, in 1791, "hey all you soldiers in this rag-tag army with no actual Armory to house artillery, arms, munitions, uniforms - let's make this easier for ya. Instead of unlawfully carrying them from home to your posts (since carrying a firearm was actually ILLEGAL in public in many places throughout the US at the time), you have federal permission to do so." (though they said it more eloquently, using legal terminology of the time, and so on)

[Sarah_W]

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/)

Worth a look.

Atlantic Myth #1: Nobody believes the Constitution gives the right to threaten government.

[JackRussell]

Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-History-Rifle-Weapon-Changed/dp/1683304314)

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

The Internet and television were not covered by the First Amendment then?

[Taltarzac725]

The Internet and television were not covered by the First Amendment then?

I am not someone that thinks we should use the US Constitution as the Founding Fathers meant their ideas to apply to society in 1789 and shortly afterwards.

Society and laws develop. As does the lethality of "arms". People should deal with the 2nd Amendment as it applies to events in 2022 not those in the 1790s.

[Reiver]

Society and laws develop. Ours are becoming more lethal.. I'm not about to give up my rights nor ability to defend myself as criminal penalties lessen and criminal behavior becomes more common.

[Taltarzac725]

Society and laws develop. Ours are becoming more lethal.. I'm not about to give up my rights nor ability to defend myself as criminal penalties lessen and criminal behavior becomes more common.

And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE.

[Sarah_W]

And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE.

The AR-15 is used for home defense, hunting and target practice.

I hear people call the AR a weapon of war and that is patently false.

The AR may look like an M16 but does not perform like the M16, a weapon of war. Our military issues the M16 which is a select fire rifle meaning there is a switch where the soldier can switch to "Auto" (hold the trigger and it keeps firing until the mag is empty), or switch to "Burst" (hold the trigger and it gives a 3 shot burst) or switch to "Semi" (one shot per trigger pull). Our military has NEVER issued the AR to our soldiers. They would die in battle carrying an AR.

The AR has one mode of fire, which is Semi. One shot per trigger pull. I own a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It shoots the same round, at the same rate of fire with the same magazine as an AR. But, because it doesn't look like an M16 and nobody is concerned by it.

An Opal GT may look like a Corvette, but it will not perform like a Corvette. You can enter the Lemans with a Corvette and win. Enter the Lemans with an Opal GT and you will be dead last or not finish.


Home Defense

Many people choose the AR for home defense. We saw it used successfully during Hurricane Katrina when looting was a problem. People defend their home.

Target practice

The most common rifle I see at the range is the AR, by a wide margin. The AR is like the Harley Davidson, you can customize it to your hearts content. It is fairly light due to the materials used to construct the chassis (wood is heavy). It is easy to shoot and has low recoil.

Sporting Rifle

Three Gun Competition is a very popular sporting event where competitors shoot a rifle, shotgun and handgun as they move through the stages. The AR is the most popular rifle used in this competition.

Steel Challenge is a very popular sporting event where competitors move through eight stages with five targets each at varying distances and configurations. There are several classes a shooter can choose including Pistol Caliber Carbine. For example, I compete in Steel Challenge and choose to shoot in two classes, 1) Factory handgun and 2) PCC, pistol caliber carbine. I own a Kel Tec SUB2000 (made in Florida). It uses 9mm ammunition in a Glock magazine. A pistol ammunition in a pistol magazine.

Incidentally, my Kel Tec is on the list of rifles that H.R. 1808 seeks to ban.

Hunting

The AR is one of the most popular hunting rifles. They are lightweight, easier to carry through the woods than a bolt action rifle, accurate and versatile. Being a modular rifle they can be configured to hunt different game by changing the barrel, bolt carrier group, and magazine.

An avid hunter might choose the following calibers utilized in the same chassis:

.223: Ideal for hunting smaller game like coyotes, rabbits, foxes and varmints.

.300 Blackout: Excellent for hunting animals like feral hogs, varmints and deer.

.308: Powerful rounds you can use to hunt moose, elk, black bears, hogs and deer.

6.5 Grendel: Rounds that produce low recoil — perfect for hunting deer-sized animals.

As a very experienced shooter it is my opinion that a gun is only as good as the shooter on the trigger. I can hand an AR to a novice shooter, show them how to use it, and pick a target from 100 to 400 yards. I will beat them with a handgun.

A "military style" weapon is no more a weapon of war than putting a uniform on Mr. Whipple and calling him a Navy Seal.

[Byte1]

And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE.

The House just passed a law banning AR-15's and other "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. They ARE actually attempting to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which hopefully will be shut down by the Supreme Court. Yes, they really ARE "trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice."

The most evident problem today is that those that fear firearms do not know a lick about them and insist that anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is a dangerous assault weapon. If you allow them to pervert the term "assault weapon" in their ignorance, then they will take away anything that is an firearm and eventually, any knife that isn't plastic. Anything that presents a threat to someone else will be labeled "assault weapon." So, instead of punishing the evil doers, they will be punishing the honest, law abiding citizen. So much for those that insist that no one is attempting to take away your guns. We are now seeing an attempt to create millions of criminals by attempting to disarm decent citizens. Do not attempt to tell me that having bolt action rifles or revolvers is "OK." It's only OK with those that do not like, or those that fear firearms. This is becoming a country where laws are created to protect the criminal and punish those that wish to protect their property, family and themselves. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution was meant to protect the criminal over the decent, honest citizen.

[Taltarzac725]

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law)

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The House just passed a law banning AR-15's and other "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. They ARE actually attempting to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which hopefully will be shut down by the Supreme Court. Yes, they really ARE "trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice."

The most evident problem today is that those that fear firearms do not know a lick about them and insist that anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is a dangerous assault weapon. If you allow them to pervert the term "assault weapon" in their ignorance, then they will take away anything that is an firearm and eventually, any knife that isn't plastic. Anything that presents a threat to someone else will be labeled "assault weapon." So, instead of punishing the evil doers, they will be punishing the honest, law abiding citizen. So much for those that insist that no one is attempting to take away your guns. We are now seeing an attempt to create millions of criminals by attempting to disarm decent citizens. Do not attempt to tell me that having bolt action rifles or revolvers is "OK." It's only OK with those that do not like, or those that fear firearms. This is becoming a country where laws are created to protect the criminal and punish those that wish to protect their property, family and themselves. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution was meant to protect the criminal over the decent, honest citizen.

[Taltarzac725]

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law)

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The House just passed a law banning AR-15's and other "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. They ARE actually attempting to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which hopefully will be shut down by the Supreme Court. Yes, they really ARE "trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice."

The most evident problem today is that those that fear firearms do not know a lick about them and insist that anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is a dangerous assault weapon. If you allow them to pervert the term "assault weapon" in their ignorance, then they will take away anything that is an firearm and eventually, any knife that isn't plastic. Anything that presents a threat to someone else will be labeled "assault weapon." So, instead of punishing the evil doers, they will be punishing the honest, law abiding citizen. So much for those that insist that no one is attempting to take away your guns. We are now seeing an attempt to create millions of criminals by attempting to disarm decent citizens. Do not attempt to tell me that having bolt action rifles or revolvers is "OK." It's only OK with those that do not like, or those that fear firearms. This is becoming a country where laws are created to protect the criminal and punish those that wish to protect their property, family and themselves. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution was meant to protect the criminal over the decent, honest citizen.

[Taltarzac725]

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law)

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The House just passed a law banning AR-15's and other "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. They ARE actually attempting to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which hopefully will be shut down by the Supreme Court. Yes, they really ARE "trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice."

The most evident problem today is that those that fear firearms do not know a lick about them and insist that anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is a dangerous assault weapon. If you allow them to pervert the term "assault weapon" in their ignorance, then they will take away anything that is an firearm and eventually, any knife that isn't plastic. Anything that presents a threat to someone else will be labeled "assault weapon." So, instead of punishing the evil doers, they will be punishing the honest, law abiding citizen. So much for those that insist that no one is attempting to take away your guns. We are now seeing an attempt to create millions of criminals by attempting to disarm decent citizens. Do not attempt to tell me that having bolt action rifles or revolvers is "OK." It's only OK with those that do not like, or those that fear firearms. This is becoming a country where laws are created to protect the criminal and punish those that wish to protect their property, family and themselves. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution was meant to protect the criminal over the decent, honest citizen.

[Byte1]

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law)

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Your political opinion. Who determines what is a "bad law?" You? I thought that was the function of the Supreme Court, and whether we agree with their opinion or not, that is their job. And that is my opinion.

[Byte1]

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law)

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Yes there was a law banning the sale of "assault weapons." Unfortunately, it has not been proved to have lowered gun related murders in the country. And it has not been proved to have lowered the mass murders in this country.
I still say that hardening the physical security will lower/eliminate mass murders by ANY type of weapon, rather than just supposed "assault weapons." You don't protect the hens from the fox by leaving the chicken coop doors open. If you eliminate the fox, you still have other predators.

[Taltarzac725]

Your political opinion. Who determines what is a "bad law?" You? I thought that was the function of the Supreme Court, and whether we agree with their opinion or not, that is their job. And that is my opinion.


I would say that the majority of law professors in the US would be able to give a very good assessment as to what is a good or bad law.

[Byte1]

I would say that the majority of law professors in the US would be able to give a very good assessment as to what is a good or bad law.

And yet, those law professors fit the old saying of "those that can't, teach." We are still speaking of "opinions" and we all know without violating the rules here, that those that you speak of are biased in "most" cases with their slant in this case.
Supreme Court justices are appointed to vote on the Constitutionality of laws. That is their sole responsibility. Yes, their opinions are influenced by their individual biases. The only way to circumvent such flaws would be to turn over all our decisions to a computer that would judge what is lawful. I wonder if the computer would be biased by the programmer.

[jimjamuser]

The AR-15 is used for home defense, hunting and target practice.

I hear people call the AR a weapon of war and that is patently false.

The AR may look like an M16 but does not perform like the M16, a weapon of war. Our military issues the M16 which is a select fire rifle meaning there is a switch where the soldier can switch to "Auto" (hold the trigger and it keeps firing until the mag is empty), or switch to "Burst" (hold the trigger and it gives a 3 shot burst) or switch to "Semi" (one shot per trigger pull). Our military has NEVER issued the AR to our soldiers. They would die in battle carrying an AR.

The AR has one mode of fire, which is Semi. One shot per trigger pull. I own a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It shoots the same round, at the same rate of fire with the same magazine as an AR. But, because it doesn't look like an M16 and nobody is concerned by it.

An Opal GT may look like a Corvette, but it will not perform like a Corvette. You can enter the Lemans with a Corvette and win. Enter the Lemans with an Opal GT and you will be dead last or not finish.


Home Defense

Many people choose the AR for home defense. We saw it used successfully during Hurricane Katrina when looting was a problem. People defend their home.

Target practice

The most common rifle I see at the range is the AR, by a wide margin. The AR is like the Harley Davidson, you can customize it to your hearts content. It is fairly light due to the materials used to construct the chassis (wood is heavy). It is easy to shoot and has low recoil.

Sporting Rifle

Three Gun Competition is a very popular sporting event where competitors shoot a rifle, shotgun and handgun as they move through the stages. The AR is the most popular rifle used in this competition.

Steel Challenge is a very popular sporting event where competitors move through eight stages with five targets each at varying distances and configurations. There are several classes a shooter can choose including Pistol Caliber Carbine. For example, I compete in Steel Challenge and choose to shoot in two classes, 1) Factory handgun and 2) PCC, pistol caliber carbine. I own a Kel Tec SUB2000 (made in Florida). It uses 9mm ammunition in a Glock magazine. A pistol ammunition in a pistol magazine.

Incidentally, my Kel Tec is on the list of rifles that H.R. 1808 seeks to ban.

Hunting

The AR is one of the most popular hunting rifles. They are lightweight, easier to carry through the woods than a bolt action rifle, accurate and versatile. Being a modular rifle they can be configured to hunt different game by changing the barrel, bolt carrier group, and magazine.

An avid hunter might choose the following calibers utilized in the same chassis:

.223: Ideal for hunting smaller game like coyotes, rabbits, foxes and varmints.

.300 Blackout: Excellent for hunting animals like feral hogs, varmints and deer.

.308: Powerful rounds you can use to hunt moose, elk, black bears, hogs and deer.

6.5 Grendel: Rounds that produce low recoil — perfect for hunting deer-sized animals.

As a very experienced shooter it is my opinion that a gun is only as good as the shooter on the trigger. I can hand an AR to a novice shooter, show them how to use it, and pick a target from 100 to 400 yards. I will beat them with a handgun.

A "military style" weapon is no more a weapon of war than putting a uniform on Mr. Whipple and calling him a Navy Seal.
I am NOT saying that it is impossible, but I am having trouble visualizing someone using a "NORMAL", average handgun like a revolver with a 4-inch barrel or an Army 9mm being able to hit something the size of (say) a basketball at 400 years on the 1st shot. That would be impressive, to say the least. If I remember correctly there is a single-shot Remington X-19 (I could be wrong about the model) that is classified as a pistol used for shooting varmints. It is like a short rifle with a pistol grip and the shoulder stock cut off. It is often used with a scope. A basketball might NOT be safe at 400 yards with such a pistol. But, an ordinary pistol with iron sights ????? The trajectory drop and wind grabbing the wide short bullet would make it difficult to hit a basketball at 400 yards - even with 20 / 20 vision.

[Sarah_W]

I am NOT saying that it is impossible, but I am having trouble visualizing someone using a "NORMAL", average handgun like a revolver with a 4-inch barrel or an Army 9mm being able to hit something the size of (say) a basketball at 400 years on the 1st shot. That would be impressive, to say the least. If I remember correctly there is a single-shot Remington X-19 (I could be wrong about the model) that is classified as a pistol used for shooting varmints. It is like a short rifle with a pistol grip and the shoulder stock cut off. It is often used with a scope. A basketball might NOT be safe at 400 yards with such a pistol. But, an ordinary pistol with iron sights ????? The trajectory drop and wind grabbing the wide short bullet would make it difficult to hit a basketball at 400 yards - even with 20 / 20 vision.

My ordinary 9mm pistol is a standard Beretta 92FS issued to the military from 1986 - 2020 and used by many civilians. The round will drop 1.97 feet at 200 yards, 6.29 feet at 300 yards and 13.175 feet at 400 yards.

If you review what I said in the previous post, I will give the AR to a novice shooter and I will use my 9mm pistol and wager I can hit at 100, 200, 300, 400 yards before the novice shooter. Simple rules, you have to hit the target before going to the next distance. You've stated you're not a novice shooter but I'll make the same wager. Loser buys lunch. I'll provide the rifle and ammo (50 rounds max) and use less than one mag on my pistol. Are you up for it?

[Rapscallion St Croix]

I would say that the majority of law professors in the US would be able to give a very good assessment as to what is a good or bad law.

I would agree if you changed "very good assessment " to "very biased assessment ".

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The AR-15 is used for home defense, hunting and target practice.

I hear people call the AR a weapon of war and that is patently false.

The AR may look like an M16 but does not perform like the M16, a weapon of war. Our military issues the M16 which is a select fire rifle meaning there is a switch where the soldier can switch to "Auto" (hold the trigger and it keeps firing until the mag is empty), or switch to "Burst" (hold the trigger and it gives a 3 shot burst) or switch to "Semi" (one shot per trigger pull). Our military has NEVER issued the AR to our soldiers. They would die in battle carrying an AR.

The AR has one mode of fire, which is Semi. One shot per trigger pull. I own a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It shoots the same round, at the same rate of fire with the same magazine as an AR. But, because it doesn't look like an M16 and nobody is concerned by it.

An Opal GT may look like a Corvette, but it will not perform like a Corvette. You can enter the Lemans with a Corvette and win. Enter the Lemans with an Opal GT and you will be dead last or not finish.


Home Defense

Many people choose the AR for home defense. We saw it used successfully during Hurricane Katrina when looting was a problem. People defend their home.

Target practice

The most common rifle I see at the range is the AR, by a wide margin. The AR is like the Harley Davidson, you can customize it to your hearts content. It is fairly light due to the materials used to construct the chassis (wood is heavy). It is easy to shoot and has low recoil.

Sporting Rifle

Three Gun Competition is a very popular sporting event where competitors shoot a rifle, shotgun and handgun as they move through the stages. The AR is the most popular rifle used in this competition.

Steel Challenge is a very popular sporting event where competitors move through eight stages with five targets each at varying distances and configurations. There are several classes a shooter can choose including Pistol Caliber Carbine. For example, I compete in Steel Challenge and choose to shoot in two classes, 1) Factory handgun and 2) PCC, pistol caliber carbine. I own a Kel Tec SUB2000 (made in Florida). It uses 9mm ammunition in a Glock magazine. A pistol ammunition in a pistol magazine.

Incidentally, my Kel Tec is on the list of rifles that H.R. 1808 seeks to ban.

Hunting

The AR is one of the most popular hunting rifles. They are lightweight, easier to carry through the woods than a bolt action rifle, accurate and versatile. Being a modular rifle they can be configured to hunt different game by changing the barrel, bolt carrier group, and magazine.

An avid hunter might choose the following calibers utilized in the same chassis:

.223: Ideal for hunting smaller game like coyotes, rabbits, foxes and varmints.

.300 Blackout: Excellent for hunting animals like feral hogs, varmints and deer.

.308: Powerful rounds you can use to hunt moose, elk, black bears, hogs and deer.

6.5 Grendel: Rounds that produce low recoil — perfect for hunting deer-sized animals.

As a very experienced shooter it is my opinion that a gun is only as good as the shooter on the trigger. I can hand an AR to a novice shooter, show them how to use it, and pick a target from 100 to 400 yards. I will beat them with a handgun.

A "military style" weapon is no more a weapon of war than putting a uniform on Mr. Whipple and calling him a Navy Seal.

Well then, you would have no problem restricting the possession of AR-15s to HOME defense, hunting, target practice, and sport shooting. Possession of an AR-15 other than the trunk of your vehicle or parking area of the above activities would be illegal.

That means you can't carry one to a protest, a demonstration, you can't carry one in to a supermarket, or restaurant (unless it's on the property of the shooting range, like a snack bar). Of course you can carry it from the store you bought it at, to the trunk of your car, where it stays locked and unavailable to you until you get out of the car (at the shooting range, hunting property, sport range, or your own home).

That's a reasonable solution to me, glad you provided the idea.

[Taltarzac725]

Well then, you would have no problem restricting the possession of AR-15s to HOME defense, hunting, target practice, and sport shooting. Possession of an AR-15 other than the trunk of your vehicle or parking area of the above activities would be illegal.

That means you can't carry one to a protest, a demonstration, you can't carry one in to a supermarket, or restaurant (unless it's on the property of the shooting range, like a snack bar). Of course you can carry it from the store you bought it at, to the trunk of your car, where it stays locked and unavailable to you until you get out of the car (at the shooting range, hunting property, sport range, or your own home).

That's a reasonable solution to me, glad you provided the idea.

Good ideas.

[Sarah_W]

Well then, you would have no problem restricting the possession of AR-15s to HOME defense, hunting, target practice, and sport shooting. Possession of an AR-15 other than the trunk of your vehicle or parking area of the above activities would be illegal.

That means you can't carry one to a protest, a demonstration, you can't carry one in to a supermarket, or restaurant (unless it's on the property of the shooting range, like a snack bar). Of course you can carry it from the store you bought it at, to the trunk of your car, where it stays locked and unavailable to you until you get out of the car (at the shooting range, hunting property, sport range, or your own home).

That's a reasonable solution to me, glad you provided the idea.

Nice leap. Perhaps you missed the post I was responding to. A little context for you: "And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE."

I have a concealed carry permit. Therefore, if I want to put an AR in a gun case, for example, it is concealed. My Kel Tec PCC folds in half and fits in a back pack. Also, concealed.

No, I would not restrict the possession or use of an AR for any legal purpose.

[RMHisle]

Well then, you would have no problem restricting the possession of AR-15s to HOME defense, hunting, target practice, and sport shooting. Possession of an AR-15 other than the trunk of your vehicle or parking area of the above activities would be illegal.

That means you can't carry one to a protest, a demonstration, you can't carry one in to a supermarket, or restaurant (unless it's on the property of the shooting range, like a snack bar). Of course you can carry it from the store you bought it at, to the trunk of your car, where it stays locked and unavailable to you until you get out of the car (at the shooting range, hunting property, sport range, or your own home).

That's a reasonable solution to me, glad you provided the idea.

One more law like this would not have stopped ANY of the mass casualty events.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

One more law like this would not have stopped ANY of the mass casualty events.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If there are stronger punishments and better defined lines that constitute a violation of the law, then SOME criminals might consider some other means of carrying out their crime.

As it stands now, any idiot with a few hundred bucks can buy a gun and shoot their way to fame and fortune.

If the idiot learned that getting caught would mean an extra 5 years mandatory imprisonment simply because he had a weapon he wasn't allowed to have, on TOP of whatever other crime he committed with that weapon - maybe he'd - I dunno. Use a less lethal method. Or end up in jail for a minimum of 5 years instead of being let off because he was a) white, b) had a good lawyer, and c) said he was sorry.

[Byte1]

Perhaps, perhaps not. If there are stronger punishments and better defined lines that constitute a violation of the law, then SOME criminals might consider some other means of carrying out their crime.

As it stands now, any idiot with a few hundred bucks can buy a gun and shoot their way to fame and fortune.

If the idiot learned that getting caught would mean an extra 5 years mandatory imprisonment simply because he had a weapon he wasn't allowed to have, on TOP of whatever other crime he committed with that weapon - maybe he'd - I dunno. Use a less lethal method. Or end up in jail for a minimum of 5 years instead of being let off because he was a) white, b) had a good lawyer, and c) said he was sorry.

Pipe dreams are moot when reality sets in. You can make all the laws you wish, but enforcing them becomes the problem in this country.
This is a thread regarding the 2nd Amendment, no?

[Sarah_W]

Pipe dreams are moot when reality sets in. You can make all the laws you wish, but enforcing them becomes the problem in this country.
This is a thread regarding the 2nd Amendment, no?

Correct. It is a thread regarding the 2nd Amendment and in particular what the Framers meant by "arms". A Constitution topic.

Perhaps we should start a thread on gun crimes. Not a Constitution topic. That seemed to work fairly well to isolate Mass Murders from this thread. Not a Constitution topic. :smiley:

[jimjamuser]

My ordinary 9mm pistol is a standard Beretta 92FS issued to the military from 1986 - 2020 and used by many civilians. The round will drop 1.97 feet at 200 yards, 6.29 feet at 300 yards and 13.175 feet at 400 yards.

If you review what I said in the previous post, I will give the AR to a novice shooter and I will use my 9mm pistol and wager I can hit at 100, 200, 300, 400 yards before the novice shooter. Simple rules, you have to hit the target before going to the next distance. You've stated you're not a novice shooter but I'll make the same wager. Loser buys lunch. I'll provide the rifle and ammo (50 rounds max) and use less than one mag on my pistol. Are you up for it?
13 feet at 40 yards is a lot of drop and wind drift could happen at 400 yards. As far as a personal competition is concerned, maybe about 5 to 10 years ago I could have done that. But, physically I don't have it anymore, and my eye prescription keeps going south on me lately. Sorry.

[jimjamuser]

One more law like this would not have stopped ANY of the mass casualty events.
Funny, the way I have read it is that the laws of Australia, and all other 1st world countries (except for the US) have actually stopped many mass murder events in their countries. The US is, BY FAR. at the top of the class for gun violence. We are number 1 thanks to our patriotic gun makers. And the 2nd Amendment being loosely worded may have contributed to that outcome. People can conjure up patriotic emotions speaking about the 2nd Amendment. But, are those emotions displaced if they contribute to situations like the Uvalde child slaughter?

[Sarah_W]

Funny, the way I have read it is that the laws of Australia, and all other 1st world countries (except for the US) have actually stopped many mass murder events in their countries. The US is, BY FAR. at the top of the class for gun violence. We are number 1 thanks to our patriotic gun makers. And the 2nd Amendment being loosely worded may have contributed to that outcome. People can conjure up patriotic emotions speaking about the 2nd Amendment. But, are those emotions displaced if they contribute to situations like the Uvalde child slaughter?

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.

[Byte1]

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.

Thank you for the great discussion and information. There will always be arguments regarding what the authors of the Constitution and BOR "meant" when they wrote it. I do not understand why anyone would wish to tear down our country, and I do not understand how anyone would compare Australia to the U.S. as a model for Freedom. The U.S. has always been the sole model for Liberty and Freedom and those that keep looking over the fence at what they believe is greener grass should climb over that fence with all their belongings and live permanently in that "better" place. I dare say that once they climb over that fence, they will find that they will be on artificial turf and they will enjoy being grain fed by a farmer that is fattening them up for the butcher shop.
It does not matter what the creators of the original documents meant by "arms" because anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS exactly what they meant, but some just don't like it and won't like anything that might hinder their "social equality" even if it means they become cattle waiting to be slaughtered.
In my opinion, "shall not be infringed" means just that. I take it as meaning "Don't prevent me from defending my family and property."
Infringed: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate.To defeat; invalidate.To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing.

[justjim]

Beautiful! And thanks to the writer of the post for taking the time to gather that information.

The intent of the founders was clear. Anyone who still tries to deny that will never change their point of view, regardless of the evidence supporting it.

With all do respect, the intent of the founders is arguably not clear and I think this Thread and several other similar Threads seem to validate that point. However, few hearts or minds will change by all these narratives. Fore.

[jimjamuser]

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.
There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

[Byte1]

There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

Sorry, but I see NO correlation between all the other countries that you believe are better than ours and the subject regarding the 2nd Amendment. Are you suggesting that since they do not have a 2nd Amendment, that they are better than ours? Or, are you attempting to have this thread shut down too?

[Sarah_W]

There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

Well, completely change the topic. If you resort to a "list", just know it is not impartial.

[Byte1]

With all do respect, the intent of the founders is arguably not clear and I think this Thread and several other similar Threads seem to validate that point. However, few hearts or minds will change by all these narratives. Fore.

I believe that in all the papers, letters, etc that the founders have written, there is plenty of evidence of what the founders meant in the 2nd Amendment. Sarah has posted plenty of quotes that should be very clear evidence of their purpose. I see absolutely no reason for confusion. The only thing that this thread "validates" is that some folks fear firearms and wish to ban them by use of confusion or an attempt to confuse the meaning of the Amendment.

[Normal]

Obviously someone wants to peddle the same old Bologna about how the founding fathers would let you have muskets, blunderbusses, cannons and grenades, but they didn’t want you to have their equivalents of today. They want you to believe in their beliefs kind of like Harry Krishnas, and avid Charles Manson followers did. Then they will go on and on with the militia blurb etc. and attempt to draw unwilling freedom enthusiasts into their weeds of government authoritarian mindset.

The bottom line, our government and foreign enemies need to know there is at least some kind of physical check when they attempt to remove our other freedoms. If they don’t like it, they can move.

Beware of the day when the government can just dictate laws on us all with zero means of civilian retaliation. That day will have a much more devastating effect on us all.