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

[Taltarzac725]

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.

[Rainger99]

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.

I also believe their definition of the press and speech was far different from the means of communication in 2022.

[LAFwUs]

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.

They also had different: indoor plumbing, cars, airplanes, golf courses, 65" TV's, new balance tennis shoes, soft serve ice-cream, amazon prime deals and waaaay different xfinity back then! Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....
:posting:

[justjim]

“Arms” were definitely different then than now. Careful this could quickly get political.

[manaboutown]

So was their attire. Can anyone imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in a wife beater shirt with a crass logo on it, wearing baggy shorts and Nike sneakers with no socks (hosiery) topped off with a baseball cap worn backwards? Maybe having some piercings, multiple earrings and facial tattoos?

[MartinSE]

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

[keepsake]

And none of the founding father or any founders, lived in Florida in the summer.

[Reiver]

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

[MartinSE]

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

[manaboutown]

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.

Well they did not have to rely on bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs and peashooters. They had cannon, mortar and howitzers. Not only was it lethal, it was brutal.

Get To Know The Brutal Artillery Of The Revolutionary War | The Drive (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28836/get-to-know-the-brutal-artillery-of-the-revolutionary-war)

[rjm1cc]

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

[ThirdOfFive]

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

[BrianL99]

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

That's not exactly true. You should read up on your history, before misquoting and misleading the masses.

[Rainger99]

That's not exactly true. You should read up on your history, before misquoting and misleading the masses.
That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

[MartinSE]

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

Well, except the war with the king was over. Maybe they feared he might come back, but from my reading it seemed it was more about loyalists. Also, the south had a thing that they were afraid if guns were not allowed their slaves would revolt or run away, so to insure the South would sign on they promised to put an amendment for allowing guns for "militia" to control the slaves.

[MartinSE]

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

And 14 virgins feeding you grapes - LOL!

[Topspinmo]

Rifles that was assault weapon in 1870s


Winchester Model 1892 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1892)

Henry rifle - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle)

The media and Hollywood sensational for there agenda.

Two Hollywood series comes to mind that sensationalized the repeating rifle

The Rifleman and wanted dead or alive. Who used the rifles to mow down the bad guys. Then, there the movie 3000 miles from Graceland and dozens more. All this sensationalized mass killing that pollute undeveloped adolescent mines. Then add the hundreds Violent video games and you have the prefect mind of mass shooter IMO.

[Rainger99]

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

The wag was Niccolo Machiavelli.

[Worldseries27]

well they did not have to rely on bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs and peashooters. They had cannon, mortar and howitzers. Not only was it lethal, it was brutal.

get to know the brutal artillery of the revolutionary war | the drive (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28836/get-to-know-the-brutal-artillery-of-the-revolutionary-war)
naval battles occurred on lake george ny. Their remains are underwater for all to view

[A-2-56]

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

[jimbomaybe]

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

I think one can make a better argument that what was the concern was a powerful central government authority, whey were still rebels with a decided preference for local government, states rights were preeminent right up to the civil war, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I think at that point they were more concerned with having the "new boss same as the old boss"

[La lamy]

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

[Joe C.]

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

No, No, No. If you know and understand firearms, you would change your opinion. However we do have a Constitution, and are obligated to abide by it.
Those who choose to commit "mass murder", don't care about the law.
And BTW, millions of us own at least one semi-automatic, and we don't go around killing people.

[Will63]

So is the free press the 1st amendment refers to. No longer newspapers or word of mouth but the 1st amendment still applies.

[bowlingal]

definitely no assault rifles

[msirianni]

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.


You missed lawyers, lots and lots of lawyers down there.

[ThirdOfFive]

The wag was Niccolo Machiavelli.
Grazie molto!

[Blackbird45]

I do have a question. If the 2nd amendment is interpreted as many people claim why is there a restriction on automatic firearms or tanks or anything? If you can afford it, you can buy it.

[NoMo50]

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

[ThirdOfFive]

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.
We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.

[Petersweeney]

Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....



Come back from the edge I’d hate to see you get bumped for a month like I did for saying the B word

[amexsbow]

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.
The problem with a lot of the people who demand taking away the right to arm and defend oneself is their lack of understanding what happens in the real world. This is what I learned as a retired L.E.O.

[midiwiz]

“Arms” were definitely different then than now. Careful this could quickly get political.

already did before you posted it, that was the original intent..

[Kgcetm]

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.

And the point to this would be?

[MartinSE]

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

[MartinSE]

And the point to this would be?

The point is, that then they did not think about Nukes. Should we allow citizens have nukes?

Okay, I will assume you are going to answer no. Then, I (and over Hal fthe country) think citizens should have pea shooters. Now, where in between those two should be be?

[MartinSE]

The problem with a lot of the people who demand taking away the right to arm and defend oneself is their lack of understanding what happens in the real world. This is what I learned as a retired L.E.O.

Well, I could say the opposite is true, since we are the country with massive numbers of guns and we are the country with all the gun related deaths. It seems the rest of the world doesn't have that problem.

Maybe it is just because all Americans are crazy?

[Speedie]

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.

Citizens with weapons was designed to allow them to protect themselves from government tyranny or a dictator. Same reasons are valid today

[NoMo50]

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

Wow. I must have been absent that day in history class. Didn't realize that Eisenhower was one of the Founding Fathers!

And, what does the growth of the military industrial complex have to do with the private ownership of firearms?

[LG999]

OP, yes, today’s weapons are different. No argument there.

What is your specific question or what is the specific point you want to make?

[MartinSE]

Wow. I must have been absent that day in history class. Didn't realize that Eisenhower was one of the Founding Fathers!

And, what does the growth of the military industrial complex have to do with the private ownership of firearms?

Snarky remarks are not flattering, they just reflect on YOU.

I was obviously responding to a previous post about how the military no longer serves its purpose.

Reading comprehension is difficult, but worth the effort.

[ORJohnny]

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

In short, the Second Amendment protects our rights to all the others, and the tyranny that may be imposed by an over reach of an administration.

[Blackbird45]

Citizens with weapons was designed to allow them to protect themselves from government tyranny or a dictator. Same reasons are valid today

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.

[ThirdOfFive]

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." (Thomas Jefferson--among others).

So true. Our system was set up so that the government SERVES the people, not the other way around.

[Scorpyo]

Ah, what did the founding fathers consider......?

Sorry I wasn't there so I really don't know what they considered. It seems many folks have opinions as to what they considered and you know the phrase "opinions are like...." If it's not specifically written then the Supreme Court makes the determination of what they believed the founding fathers considered. "But the history is written and supports my theory." Sorry, but I didn't get this weeks rewritten version of history. I'll wait until next week I'm sure it will have changed.
Imagine for a moment if Ukraine had copied our Constitution. Besides having all those horrible lethal weapons in the hands of their citizens they probably would have kept those disgusting nuclear missiles. (Can't imagine who convinced them to give them up. I hope whoever did regrets it although I would bet they don't). Do you think they would have been invaded? Assured mutual mass destruction, probably not. But this is 2022 and the US would never be invaded or be subjected to tyranny. How long has it been that mankind (I mean personkind) has been in conflict or war? I'll check next week's rewritten history but if I were to guess today I would say forever. So why would I believe that the future would be any different. Maybe that might be something the founding fathers considered.

[ThirdOfFive]

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.
What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.

[Taltarzac725]

Interpretation: The Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99)

This is a good discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

My opinion is that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom made that sentence about the "right to bear arms" very unclear so future Americans could interpret it to fit the technology of that time. They did know how inventions like gunpowder and the printing press could change society quite a bit.

[Taltarzac725]

They would have lost but not for getting the French, Dutch and Spanish to help with their ships. These ships cost a lot of money to build and maintain.

Ship of the line - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line)

Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_battles_of_the_American_Revolutionary_War)

What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.

[jebartle]

No, No, No. If you know and understand firearms, you would change your opinion. However we do have a Constitution, and are obligated to abide by it.
Those who choose to commit "mass murder", don't care about the law.
And BTW, millions of us own at least one semi-automatic, and we don't go around killing people.

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

[jebartle]

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.

Wonder how often a gun is used because it's convenient and the owner has less than the required grey matter!!!!!

[Rainger99]

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

And if there is massive unrest caused by Covid, fuel shortages, food shortages, or war (think Ukraine), climate change, etc., should people be allowed to defend themselves?

[MartinSE]

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

[MartinSE]

And if there is massive unrest caused by Covid, fuel shortages, food shortages, or war (think Ukraine), climate change, etc., should people be allowed to defend themselves?

Let me know how your AR-15 does when the M1Abrams shows up.

[jebartle]

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

Amen!!!!!

[Byte1]

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

Interesting how so many fail to address the fact that there is a COMMA in the sentence. Seems to me that has a tendency to change the narrative somewhat. Personally, as former law enforcement I tend to read it as a Constitutional right for ALL citizens to own firearms, not just for National Defense but for personal defense. To be honest about it, the two are not that dissimilar.

[Blackbird45]

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.[/QUOTE]

If you read my post more carefully you would have noticed was responding to a previous post below.

[QUOTE=ThirdOfFive;2117603]What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

[Byte1]

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

Why do you feel there has to be an either/or? School safety should be physical security. Target shooting should never be illegal, and is no different than shooting hoops with a basketball, if done as a game/sport. One mentally ill person should not dictate the actions of the majority of law abiding citizens.
I understand some folks' fear of firearms. I get it. Being ignorant of a subject can cause fear. Those of us that have owned guns for decades, consider a firearm as a tool and do not fear them. To stop a person for killing someone due to DUI, you do not close down the bars and liquor stores and outlaw booze because of a minority of those that cannot handle liquor.

[MartinSE]

Why do you feel there has to be an either/or? School safety should be physical security. Target shooting should never be illegal, and is no different than shooting hoops with a basketball, if done as a game/sport. One mentally ill person should not dictate the actions of the majority of law abiding citizens.
I understand some folks' fear of firearms. I get it. Being ignorant of a subject can cause fear. Those of us that have owned guns for decades, consider a firearm as a tool and do not fear them. To stop a person for killing someone due to DUI, you do not close down the bars and liquor stores and outlaw booze because of a minority of those that cannot handle liquor.

I don't and my post was snarky. I apologize. It seems so many one liners, I thought maybe that is all some can focus on.

And uh, yes, we DO close the bars, there are operating hours.

And uh, yes, the AR-15 is just a tool that is the tool of choice for killing children in schools. Only HERE, no where else in the world (at our rate).

And no, removing all AR15's (can't be done) would not solve the problem, and I have NEVER advocated that. I would like it, but I know it is not possible. So, instead I am for things like universal background checks - n o responsible gun owner can come up with any explanation why they is bad - but many try with things like "the government has no rights to do that, I have a right to a gun". And so, for what 50 years now, we have been arguing while children die.

[rsimpson]

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

You are 100% correct, my friend.

[Reiver]

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.

Let me see if I understand you..
You don't want us to have guns, so that the government doesn't have to kill us and a few hundred innocent people to impose their will?
YOU are the one who scares me.. not the gun owners.

[Reiver]

Let me know how your AR-15 does when the M1Abrams shows up.

You'll be the first one anyone calls, if that happens.

https://i.imgur.com/pqoR7r2.jpg

[Normal]

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.

Arms that could be used by a militia to repel or overthrow a strong armed government. Modern arms only match up proportionally. Same thing.

[MartinSE]

Arms that could be used by a militia to repel or overthrow a strong armed government. Modern arms only match up proportionally. Same thing.

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?

[Taltarzac725]

Arms that could be used by a militia to repel or overthrow a strong armed government. Modern arms only match up proportionally. Same thing.


I view the National Guard as what the Founding Fathers meant as to a well regulated militia. And the gunpowder, artillery, etc., for this militia would be kept under lock-and-keys.

The individual private citizens would become members of this militia. And would use the arms they use for hunting and defending themselves against natural threats like bears, wolves, etc., and Native Americans on the war path.

Wolves were hunted pretty much out of existence in New England.

The Outside Story: Northeastern wolves: Then and now | Opinion | benningtonbanner.com (https://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/the-outside-story-northeastern-wolves-then-and-now/article_f957ed54-1295-5c1c-9e52-5e19e93640f3.html)

[Normal]

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?


Ya, we never will get nukes. But deterrence is important too. Of course speaking of wolves, they are one of the few instances where a large capacity semiautomatic rifle is needed. When a pack tries to take down a head of cattle, ranchers are happy to have several shots available.

[Topspinmo]

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

Home defense, I don’t want to get killed just cause I ran out 6 pack.

[Wyseguy]

And none of the founding father or any founders, lived in Florida in the summer.


Oh YEAH, well what about:undecided:, no, you are correct. Nevermind.

[Wyseguy]

You'll be the first one anyone calls, if that happens.

https://i.imgur.com/pqoR7r2.jpg

Great article. It is fine if a person or group want to give up their rights, it is a problem when they want to give up other peoples rights as well.

[justjim]

I have owned guns most of my life primarily to hunt and target shoot with my Dad and a few close friends. When Dad passed and I retired, I retired my hunting guns and moved to Florida. Golf is my primary hobby and I love the game but it sure would have been nice if he had bought me a set of golf clubs along with that BB gun and first shotgun. I still have a couple of personal guns at home that actually belonged to my Dad and a close friend. We never had any thoughts or discussions about having any gun to protect us from “the Government”. That just seems “weird” to me but to each his own. Fore

[Wyseguy]

already did before you posted it, that was the original intent..

You are right. This post was meant to further divide people. Why do the admins permit it? I'd rather have no restrictions, but...

[Byte1]

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?

So, what you are saying is that everyone should be a lemming, chicken, or whatever wimpy character that illustrates "coward" and just hope that the gov knows what is best for us. That is without question, right? So, instead of showing any kind of resistance, one should just cower and plead for mercy? Sorry, but in my America we protect ourselves and our own and do not cotton bullying. Just because someone has an opinion, based on ignorance does not mean the majority needs to suffer their weakness. If folks expect a cop to be there to protect them, then they are also ignorant of the Cop's role in our country. COPs will take your report AFTER the crime is committed. If their mere presence prevents a crime, great. Sorry, but there are not enough police to go around. If you are scared of guns, then don't purchase one. But, don't presume to make that decision for others.
I am more worried about a mentally challenged person wielding a hammer as a weapon than a gun. If he has a gun, then I can use lethal force to disable him. With a hammer, there may be a question of whether or not lethal force was necessary.

[Wyseguy]

Home defense, I don’t want to get killed just cause I ran out 6 pack.

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?

[Wyseguy]

And if there is massive unrest caused by Covid, fuel shortages, food shortages, or war (think Ukraine), climate change, etc., should people be allowed to defend themselves?

Other than revolvers and some shotguns, aren't the vast majority of guns semi auto?

[Wyseguy]

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

So now Eisenhower is a founding father?

[Wyseguy]

Well, I could say the opposite is true, since we are the country with massive numbers of guns and we are the country with all the gun related deaths. It seems the rest of the world doesn't have that problem.

Maybe it is just because all Americans are crazy?

Not all are crazy, but fortunately there are ways to tell. Like many birds use colorful feathers to attract mates, or fish use bright colors to signify danger, stay away from me, humans have evolved as well. Dangerous humans tend to have green or some other oddly colored hair.

[Byte1]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, but it's in writing; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" It doesn't matter the intent of those persons owning firearms. The laws says that right "shall not be infringed." I won't print out the definition of "infringed" because everyone here should understand that.
By the way, according to the CDC, an average (reported) of a million citizens are saved by guns every year. That is a conservative number, which means that there are probably a lot more than reported.
Want to protect children or just announce a fear of guns? Protect children by hardening physical security at the schools. A tall fence with a gate and gate guard will deter 99.9% of school mass murders. Making schools soft targets makes it easy for lazy criminals to exploit. That's what happens in theaters also. That bad guy hates the idea of having to worry about being stopped when he has an agenda.

[MartinSE]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, but it's in writing; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" It doesn't matter the intent of those persons owning firearms. The laws says that right "shall not be infringed." I won't print out the definition of "infringed" because everyone here should understand that.
By the way, according to the CDC, an average (reported) of a million citizens are saved by guns every year. That is a conservative number, which means that there are probably a lot more than reported.
Want to protect children or just announce a fear of guns? Protect children by hardening physical security at the schools. A tall fence with a gate and gate guard will deter 99.9% of school mass murders. Making schools soft targets makes it easy for lazy criminals to exploit. That's what happens in theaters also. That bad guy hates the idea of having to worry about being stopped when he has an agenda.

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

[ThirdOfFive]

Other than revolvers and some shotguns, aren't the vast majority of guns semi auto?
You could interpret it as that. Most firearms, other than single-shot ones where you have to physically eject the spent cartridge and load another one by hand, will fire rapidly, the advantage of the semi-auto being that you can fire the rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. A double-action revolver for example will also fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, the limiting factor being that your finger supplies the energy to rotate the cylinder and cycle the hammer, so "as fast as you can pull the trigger" is somewhat slower than with a semi-auto pistol.

But even a lever-action rifle can be fired rapidly. Back in the day my uncle Vic, who hunted deer with a 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, had the reputation of being able to fire off the seventh round before the first one got to the target. May have been slightly exaggerated, but he WAS fast. Not accurate, but fast.

[moe1212]

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

the reason is to fend off tyranny / the government, if they decide to take over. To have the ability to defend against the "standing army" I don't think flint locks or sabers would have much of a chance. The amendment is not for sport shooters / hunters or the such

[Byte1]

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

Did I say anything about justifying children dying every year? Is getting rid of guns going to stop children from dying every year? I think that the idea of children dying by being shot in schools is just an excuse for those that wish to impel their personal fears and beliefs on others. If they really cared about children they would not be so cavalier about ignoring the majority of citizens rights. If they really cared about the children's safety, they would protect them at the schools instead of attempting to change the masses to their will. Like I said before, harden the physical security and get over the idea of being able to stop mental illness. Murders have been committed since the beginning of mankind and it will never stop. Best way to stop murderers is to put them down when they commit the crime. The best way to protect is physical security. The best way to deter is to put fear into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. If someone wishes to break into my home to steal, they will NOT do so if they know I am home and armed. Why do they prefer females over males when they carjack? Because they fear strength in any form. They are cowards by nature and prey on the weak.
Like I said before, when you can show me where more folks are killed by guns than saved by guns, we can have an honest discussion on the subject of firearms.

[Freeda]

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.

I would assume that our founding fathers also knew that technology would continue to improve/change in the future, as to what would be considered "arms"; yet they did not restrict that term to only "arms" that existed at the time.

[manaboutown]

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

I firmly believe this heroic young man's selfless act to protect others would warm the hearts of the founding fathers.

Police applaud bystander who killed Indiana mall shooter (https://www.fox13news.com/news/police-applaud-bystander-who-killed-indiana-mall-shooter)

I am more concerned about the huge number of children killed by fentanyl and other illicit drugs, drunken drivers, and armed and unarmed thugs in their neighborhoods than these copy cat school shooting committed by a few crazies. Of course schools should be secured. That is a no brainer.

The penalty should severe enough to deter the crime. The death penalty should be used when appropriate . I cannot understand why this murderer is still alive.

Supreme Court reimposes death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084514764/supreme-court-boston-bomber-death-sentence)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

Except, we don't have a King. We don't need to conscript private citizens to fight our wars from us anymore, we have an actual military now, and they have their own budget and their own weapons.

[Duke-SRT]

We protect our president with guns
We protect our politicians with guns
We protect our money (banks) with guns
We protect our celebrities with guns
We protect or children with a sign that says “this is a no gun zone”.

[Number 10 GI]

Let me know how your AR-15 does when the M1Abrams shows up.

Do the same thing the Viet Minn, Viet Cong and the Mujahideen did against their enemies. The Viet Cong endured attacks from tanks, infantry, artillery, attach helicopters and B52 strikes and kept coming back for more. Cost us what, 50,000 plus lives?

[Taltarzac725]

Do the same thing the Viet Minn, Viet Cong and the Mujahideen did against their enemies. The Viet Cong endured attacks from tanks, infantry, artillery, attach helicopters and B52 strikes and kept coming back for more. Cost us what, 50,000 plus lives?

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

[Joe C.]

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

When you need a fast, second shot. It's important if you are hunting and one shot doesn't do it...... or if you missed on your first shot, and still have an opportunity.

How about this : Three home invaders break into your house while you are sleeping. You awake to the sound of the front door crashing in. You get out of bed to see what's happening.. Upon seeing the home invaders, you point to your watch and say "Hey, it's time to leave". Or do you take your semi-automatic and drop them 1,2,3.

[Bill14564]

Except, we don't have a King. We don't need to conscript private citizens to fight our wars from us anymore, we have an actual military now, and they have their own budget and their own weapons.

With the current political climate we may have a king sooner than later.

Since 1980, every male US citizen between 18 and 25 has been required to register for the draft. That it has not been invoked does not negate that fact that it *could* be invoked at the demand of the "king"

The standing army, with the ability to conscript private citizens is, to some, the reason we need the 2nd amendment.

[Number 10 GI]

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

And we have large urban areas where all kinds of evil people can and do hide.

[Jeffery M]

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.

During the timeof the Founding Father's private individuals could, own cannon, individually and as part of mercantile partnerships, for use on their ships, for protection against pirates and for use as privateers.

[MartinSE]

Did I say anything about justifying children dying every year? Is getting rid of guns going to stop children from dying every year? I think that the idea of children dying by being shot in schools is just an excuse for those that wish to impel their personal fears and beliefs on others. If they really cared about children they would not be so cavalier about ignoring the majority of citizens rights. If they really cared about the children's safety, they would protect them at the schools instead of attempting to change the masses to their will. Like I said before, harden the physical security and get over the idea of being able to stop mental illness. Murders have been committed since the beginning of mankind and it will never stop. Best way to stop murderers is to put them down when they commit the crime. The best way to protect is physical security. The best way to deter is to put fear into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. If someone wishes to break into my home to steal, they will NOT do so if they know I am home and armed. Why do they prefer females over males when they carjack? Because they fear strength in any form. They are cowards by nature and prey on the weak.
Like I said before, when you can show me where more folks are killed by guns than saved by guns, we can have an honest discussion on the subject of firearms.

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

[montysl]

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?

You assume, wrongly I believe, that our current armed forces (citizens all) would use weapons like this against other citizens of their own country, even if ordered to.
When sworn in, we swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. NOT the government. And especially not a government (or individuals) gone haywire enough to consider killing its citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.

[jimbomaybe]

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

"1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that." Look at the methodology, a person "goes away" gets out of the joint and goes back to criminal activity , obviously punishment doesn't do any good, but the longer they are "away" the more society saves by keeping them out of circulation . cheaper to lock some people that have them walking free

[Topspinmo]

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?


No, I didn’t pose the answer.

[mikeycereal]

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.


This I 100% agree with. Been saying this since the 3rd copycat mass shooter way back when. The media loves to dramatize these to the max. Displaying victim emotions and portraying the shooters as more powerful than they are. They aren't really, just messed up wimps who are wannabe tough guys with a gun to shoot kids and people praying in churches. Then the media just sloshes on the cheese, which feeds into the minds of the sick anti-socials who were already glorifying other shooters. The shooter stories should be small and in the back page somewhere, no mention of shooter's name or back history. It won't happen though sadly. The media will still go after their pulitzer and happily collect their clicks.

[MartinSE]

You assume, wrongly I believe, that our current armed forces (citizens all) would use weapons like this against other citizens of their own country, even if ordered to.
When sworn in, we swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. NOT the government. And especially not a government (or individuals) gone haywire enough to consider killing its citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.

As a Marine I agree we swear that oath. I can't go further without getting banned for political comments. But, we all saw what almost happened - a dry run.

[manaboutown]

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

Most were conscripts with horrific threats of death or worse to themselves and their families. Very few were patriots.

[manaboutown]

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

That is preposterous. If a killer is executed he can not get out and kill again. Also it reminds potential killers that they, too, will die if they murder someone.

And for lesser crimes if the perps would be locked up and the key proverbially thrown away they would not be back on the streets committing more crimes.

[Taltarzac725]

This is worth a look. The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms - FindLaw (https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html)

[MartinSE]

"1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that." Look at the methodology, a person "goes away" gets out of the joint and goes back to criminal activity , obviously punishment doesn't do any good, but the longer they are "away" the more society saves by keeping them out of circulation . cheaper to lock some people that have them walking free

I agree with you, but the post I was referring to said that laws would stop/slow down the problem since people would be deterred by going to jail. That does work that way, as you say.

[jimbomaybe]

I agree with you, but the post I was referring to said that laws would stop/slow down the problem since people would be deterred by going to jail. That does work that way, as you say.

By saying that "punishment" doesn't work you obviously are suggesting that something else should be done. I think punishment does work ,if of course it is sufficient to deter the criminal inclined, that, it seems apparent is not the case

[RMHisle]

At the time the Second Amendment was written, ALL guns were "military style".

The Second Amendment codified the preexisting human right of self defense.

[Larchap49]

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.

Well Duuuuuuuh! Is there anything the same as it was in the 1700s. Many posters are going to point that out, so rad on. The Constitution is very adaptable to todays changed world but should not be interpreted based on your personal or political views. The armed population is about the only thing keeping this country from becoming _________ (fill in the blank). The freedom of speech is eroding as are a lot of other constitutional rights. That erosion would be much faster without an armed populace.

[Larchap49]

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

All repressed countries have something in common, a standing army and an unarmed population. Think about it.

[NoMo50]

The MSM loves to sensationalize mass shootings, but you rarely see the reports of people who are saved by the "good guy" with a gun. There are typically around 20,000 homicides each year caused by firearms. At the same time, there are well over 1 million lives saved by the good guy with a gun. Any loss of life is tragic, but should we not also celebrate those lives saved? The media does not like to report these incidents. If it bleeds, it leads.

Another annoying fact that always seems to get in the way is that more people are killed each year with blunt instruments (hammers, clubs, etc.), than with rifles of any kind. Should we ban hammers? Each year, around 200,000 people die as a result of mistakes made by medical personnel. Do we ban doctors? When you get right down to it, the vocal minority screaming for the banning of "objects" have less regard for the saving of lives, than they do for advancing an agenda.

[lpkruege1]

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.

But then again women weren't allowed to vote, you were allowed to own slaves, dueling was allowed to settle arguments, people were paid pennies, people rode horses, need I go on?

[Byte1]

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

Read the post again. I said to put "fear" into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. And that was referring to "putting the murderers down" when they commit murder. Saying "punishment" when I did not say that, is putting words not said into the equation.
When someone consistently compares our country with others, it makes me want to suggest they migrate to such a grand place. Our country is not like those other countries; it's unique. Folks want to come here. Very few of our U.S. citizens wish to reside elsewhere and do not leave permanently. Of course, some will argue and say "I know someone that moved." Some folks argue just to argue, instead of suggesting reasonable solutions. I made reasonable solutions to a persistent problem.
It's very simple:
1. Physical security for the children
2. Specialized training for law enforcement
3. Execute (kill) those that commit murder

Unreasonable ideas:
1. Ban semi-automatic weapons
2. Ban guns
3. Age limits
None of these "unreasonable" ideas will protect the children.

[ThirdOfFive]

This I 100% agree with. Been saying this since the 3rd copycat mass shooter way back when. The media loves to dramatize these to the max. Displaying victim emotions and portraying the shooters as more powerful than they are. They aren't really, just messed up wimps who are wannabe tough guys with a gun to shoot kids and people praying in churches. Then the media just sloshes on the cheese, which feeds into the minds of the sick anti-socials who were already glorifying other shooters. The shooter stories should be small and in the back page somewhere, no mention of shooter's name or back history. It won't happen though sadly. The media will still go after their pulitzer and happily collect their clicks.
Bingo!

Your point about "copycat" has been irrefutably proven by independent studies many times. Whether some people like to believe it or not, sensationalizing these crimes DOES result in more like crimes. Anyone can read that data with just a few mouse clicks. In other words, we have within our ability the way to cut back significantly on these crimes. We've had that ability ever since "copycat" crimes became a thing.

But we don't.

Which, of course, begs the question: why not?

The only logical answer to that question is one that is too terrible to consider, but inevitably the same answer pops up. If the powers-that-be DON'T attempt to employ a method that is statistically certain to reduce the killing--then there must be, in the minds of at least some, a number of dead kids that is acceptable if those dead kids lead to that goal, which is apparently a no-gun society.

All we need to do is to require factual reporting on such incidents and ban the sensationalizing. By doing so we could cut back on the number of fatalities by these copycats by possibly half. Possibly more. Media of course would try to hide behind the First Amendment but there is legal precedent; if there is a PROVABLE link between media sensationalizing and resultant harm, media can be held responsible for that. But to date I've not even seen the whisper of a movement to limit media over-sensationalizing. It CAN be done. It SHOULD be done.

Or do we just go around chasing shadows and write these kids off as martyrs to a worthy (in the estimation of some, apparently) cause?

[Larchap49]

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

Not only our government. Many have mentioned history. Here's some history. When questioned after WW2 the leader of the Imperial Japanese Military told the Emperor when asked why not invade the west coast of America. He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree. That is a historical fact and another valid reason for an armed populace.

[ThirdOfFive]

Not only our government. Many have mentioned history. Here's some history. When questioned after WW2 the leader of the Imperial Japanese Military told the Emperor when asked why not invade the west coast of America. He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree. That is a historical fact and another valid reason for an armed populace.
" He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree."

Said by Admiral Isoruko Yamato, to be specific. The architect of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and probably the most able military mind in Japan at the time. And he would have known. Yamamoto was a student at Harvard between wars and also served as Japan's military attache' in Washington for some time. He initially opposed the attack on pearl harbor and war with America, but his loyalty to his country dictated that he serve is emperor.

Another Yamamoto quote following the Pearl Harbor atteck:

"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve".

[Driller703]

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

[nancyre]

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?

Simply 1 tigger pull - 1 bullet
Semi-automatic mean there is some form of storage system that holds multiple bullets
vs.
Single shot / bolt action
1 tigger pull - 1 bullet expel bullet casing - load next bullet

vs. Military automatic - hold down tigger - rounds come out until you release the trigger (up to the number you have available / connected)

[Rainger99]

" He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree."

Said by Admiral Isoruko Yamato, to be specific. The architect of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and probably the most able military mind in Japan at the time. And he would have known. Yamamoto was a student at Harvard between wars and also served as Japan's military attache' in Washington for some time. He initially opposed the attack on pearl harbor and war with America, but his loyalty to his country dictated that he serve is emperor.

Another Yamamoto quote following the Pearl Harbor atteck:

"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve".

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/)

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.

[Wyseguy]

Simply 1 tigger pull - 1 bullet
Semi-automatic mean there is some form of storage system that holds multiple bullets
vs.
Single shot / bolt action
1 tigger pull - 1 bullet expel bullet casing - load next bullet

vs. Military automatic - hold down tigger - rounds come out until you release the trigger (up to the number you have available / connected)

Based on your definition, what handgun would be legal. If the idea is to outlaw semi auto weapons (as defined above), even revolvers would be outlawed. Six (or 5) bullets in a cylinder, one trigger pull one bullet.

[ThirdOfFive]

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/)

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” (goodreads)

There is some controversy about whether or not Admiral Yamamoto actually said that, but it is eminently possible considering his experience in America. He knew the culture, which is why in my opinion he so strongly advocated not going to war with America in the first place.

[joelfmi]

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.
Baked into the ethos of the United States is the belief that liberty and the rights of the people can only truly remain secure as long as the right to bear arms remains secure. There is a good reason for Americans to have this outlook. Which to me and many seniors believe in to keep our democracy in check.and not chipped away piece by piece..

[MartinSE]

Read the post again. I said to put "fear" into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. And that was referring to "putting the murderers down" when they commit murder. Saying "punishment" when I did not say that, is putting words not said into the equation.
When someone consistently compares our country with others, it makes me want to suggest they migrate to such a grand place. Our country is not like those other countries; it's unique. Folks want to come here. Very few of our U.S. citizens wish to reside elsewhere and do not leave permanently. Of course, some will argue and say "I know someone that moved." Some folks argue just to argue, instead of suggesting reasonable solutions. I made reasonable solutions to a persistent problem.
It's very simple:
1. Physical security for the children
2. Specialized training for law enforcement
3. Execute (kill) those that commit murder

Unreasonable ideas:
1. Ban semi-automatic weapons
2. Ban guns
3. Age limits
None of these "unreasonable" ideas will protect the children.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to incarceration. I agree with you. I don't recall which , but some state(s?) tried requiring death penalty for any felony where a gun was used. I don't think it helped, but honestly don't remember.

As for comparing to other countries. I see no problem with learning from others. Certainly we are different, but when every other country in the world does not have a serious problem we have, then I think it is worth trying to see why. Seeing what works someplace and figuring out how it might be applied here is just smart. It's, in my opinion, learning from others mistakes so I don't have to do it myself.

On your suggestions, we are not far apart. I absolutely want age limits. For the same reason we have age limits on drinking, driving, joining the military, etc etc etc. Children's brains have not fully developed.

And the thing I would add is universal background checks. If someone has a history of violent crimes, spousal abuse, mental illness, etc. I don't think they should have legal access to guns.

Which leads to my other suggestion, which I don't see any reason responsible gun owner should mind, and that is holding the seller of guns responsible to have performed the universal background test. If they failed to perform the test, or sold even though the buyer failed, they should share the blame for anything the illegal purchase results in.

So, I am okay with all of yours except age limits. (I think if a person can go to war at 18, then that should be old enough to own a gun) And I think we should add too more.

[MartinSE]

Baked into the ethos of the United States is the belief that liberty and the rights of the people can only truly remain secure as long as the right to bear arms remains secure. There is a good reason for Americans to have this outlook. Which to me and many seniors believe in to keep our democracy in check.and not chipped away piece by piece..

I disagree with this basic premise. It is baked into some people, not everyone.

If it is should a good reason, why has it not been needed in 200 years except once - and that ended up changing nothing except killing 600,000 Americans, many of them brothers.

[Number 10 GI]

Only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.

[MartinSE]

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

And how many times have the people had to rise up and put the government in its place over the past 200 years?

And don't tell me it's working. There is no proof of causation. The closest we have come was 18 month ago, and we can't talk about that.

[MartinSE]

Only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.

[Number 10 GI]

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.

I guess it's because I'm not a brain dead, naive fool. Funny, anytime someone disagrees with you it is dispersion but when you disagree with someone it is just an honest difference.

[Byte1]

I apologize, I thought you were referring to incarceration. I agree with you. I don't recall which , but some state(s?) tried requiring death penalty for any felony where a gun was used. I don't think it helped, but honestly don't remember.

As for comparing to other countries. I see no problem with learning from others. Certainly we are different, but when every other country in the world does not have a serious problem we have, then I think it is worth trying to see why. Seeing what works someplace and figuring out how it might be applied here is just smart. It's, in my opinion, learning from others mistakes so I don't have to do it myself.

On your suggestions, we are not far apart. I absolutely want age limits. For the same reason we have age limits on drinking, driving, joining the military, etc etc etc. Children's brains have not fully developed.

And the thing I would add is universal background checks. If someone has a history of violent crimes, spousal abuse, mental illness, etc. I don't think they should have legal access to guns.

Which leads to my other suggestion, which I don't see any reason responsible gun owner should mind, and that is holding the seller of guns responsible to have performed the universal background test. If they failed to perform the test, or sold even though the buyer failed, they should share the blame for anything the illegal purchase results in.

So, I am okay with all of yours except age limits. (I think if a person can go to war at 18, then that should be old enough to own a gun) And I think we should add too more.

Once again, I have not verbalized my thoughts in such a way that makes my thought(s) coherent enough to be understood. I did not mean that there should not be age limits. What I meant to suggest is that age limits will not stop the killing or protect the children. If I am not mistaken, our governor signed a state law that indicated an age limit for purchasing rifles in Florida. Supposedly, no one under age 21 may purchase a firearm in Florida. I do not think that will save any children from a mass murder in public schools, but I also agree with you that anyone that can fight FOR this country should be able to purchase a hunting rifle when they come home. As long as our youth can still participate in firearms safety classes and sport competition as well as hunting, I have no problem with age limits for the purchases of firearms. As long as a father or mother can still purchase a firearm for their children (under supervision) to participate in such activities, I am fine with some form of guidance/supervision for our youth to become familiar with firearms.

[justjim]

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

With all due respect, perhaps the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation and is not unlimited. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia thought so. For example we have free speech and freedom of the press by the 1st amendment but there are limits such as liability in defamation of your character etc. Having the ability to carry “arms” perhaps has its limits too. You can drive a car but you can’t drive drunk - I could go on but you can see where Iam going with this. “Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out exceptions “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Antonin Scalia

[MartinSE]

I guess it's because I'm not a brain dead, naive fool. Funny, anytime someone disagrees with you it is dispersion but when you disagree with someone it is just an honest difference.

Really please provide =examples of my taking offense at disagreement that isn't worded as a juvenile insult. As you just did again. I guess it is okay to insult members here if you ate you do it childishly.

[MartinSE]

With all due respect, perhaps the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation and is not unlimited. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia thought so. For example we have free speech and freedom of the press by the 1st amendment but there are limits such as liability in defamation of your character etc. Having the ability to carry “arms” perhaps has its limits too. You can drive a car but you can’t drive drunk - I could go on but you can see where Iam going with this. “Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out exceptions “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Antonin Scalia

Hmm, I agree, but I expect Scalia was just a "conservative in name only" (CINO)... ahem... (sarcasm)

[MartinSE]

Once again, I have not verbalized my thoughts in such a way that makes my thought(s) coherent enough to be understood. I did not mean that there should not be age limits. What I meant to suggest is that age limits will not stop the killing or protect the children. If I am not mistaken, our governor signed a state law that indicated an age limit for purchasing rifles in Florida. Supposedly, no one under age 21 may purchase a firearm in Florida. I do not think that will save any children from a mass murder in public schools, but I also agree with you that anyone that can fight FOR this country should be able to purchase a hunting rifle when they come home. As long as our youth can still participate in firearms safety classes and sport competition as well as hunting, I have no problem with age limits for the purchases of firearms. As long as a father or mother can still purchase a firearm for their children (under supervision) to participate in such activities, I am fine with some form of guidance/supervision for our youth to become familiar with firearms.

I can agree with your statement.

So, that makes two of us, I bet there are others. If we all talk instead of just repeating dog whistles and insults I firmly believe we can reach a compromise that will help.

And the reason is, I think that you said what you think, and then explained why. That is called discussion (for the others reading along) as opposed to just spewing out that anyone that thinks different than you is stupid. Maybe they are maybe they aren't but it isn't going to lead to anything other than heated arguments. Thank you for taking the time and responding to my post with intelligent discussion.

[ThirdOfFive]

only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.
amen, brother!!!

[Normal]

A firearm needed in NYC is much different than a firearm needed in Montana or even Alaska. Banning firearms on a national level is crazy.

[ThirdOfFive]

A firearm needed in NYC is much different than a firearm needed in Montana or even Alaska. Banning firearms on a national level is crazy.
Banning firearms on whatever level is crazy, because it can't work.

There are anywhere from 300 million to 1/2 BILLION firearms in America currently in private hands. There is "paper" (purchase and ownership records) on only a very small percentage of these firearms, 10% to 15% at most. It is only recently, in the history of this nation, that the government began requiring background checks on weapons, and there no record at all of sales before those requirements went into effect. Those guns could be anywhere.

OK. For the sake of discussion, let's say the federal government requires all citizens to turn in their firearms. Just how many of those 300 million to 1/2 billion firearms will be dutifully toted in to the nearest collection station and handed over? Well, we can assume that those in ILLEGAL hands aren't going anywhere. And the legal ones? Maybe 5% at most. Almost certainly less.

OK. So the government saddles up law enforcement and sends 'em out to collect the guns. It calls on the people that records show have been purchased by them. But (surprise surprise) just about all of the guns aren't in the possession of the original owners. They're lost, sold, junked or whatever the story is. Forcible searches with metal detectors, etc., will turn up a fair amount. But barely a blip on the radar. And the guns with no "paper"? Would law enforcement go to every house owned or rented by every American to conduct such searches? Two answers come to mind. No way and no how.

Even back in Minnesota, where blue is the primary color, I knew several LEOs who stated unequivocally that there would be no way they'd engage in such a search. They're sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the government. Quite a number of military apparently feel the same way. There'd be no quicker way for the government to instigate armed conflict than to try to take the guns away from the legal owners. And the government, despite all the caterwauling and hoopla, knows it.

So--let's deal with reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky bee ess.

[Daxdog]

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.

Any argument about that is so wrong, when weapons like guns were invented and up to 1776 they were improving all the time. If anyone thinks that the foundling fathers thought they would not improve is wrong. ( trying to be nice). When you read or see anything like that you must find out where it came from and what is the background and why they may think that.

[MartinSE]

Any argument about that is so wrong, when weapons like guns were invented and up to 1776 they were improving all the time. If anyone thinks that the foundling fathers thought they would not improve is wrong. ( trying to be nice). When you read or see anything like that you must find out where it came from and what is the background and why they may think that.

I am not sure what you are saying. Do you mean the founders would be okay with citizens having Nukes?

[mtdjed]

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

Before assuming the above is all encompassing, we should be aware of the period of time and what was happening.

Individual Firearm Weapons commonly used at that time were basically one-shot Muskets. Some basic rifles available but were still one shot.

Prior to the Revolutionary war (1775-1783) there was no US but 13 colonies of England.

The Frontier for example was Carlisle PA in 1755. The French and Indian war was 1754-1763. Much of the fighting was done by Militias from the Colonies. The "Colonies" rebelled at being taxed by Britain.

Colonies Declared Independence in 1776. Colonies (now states) issued Articles of Confederation 1777 -1781.

Revolutionary War over 1783. US Constitution 1789. Bill of rights 1791. These were amendment to the constitution. Amendment 2 topic of concern.

1792 Militia Act defined Militia requirements (Still single shot muskets). Militias defined as state responsibilities. Mentioned, Militias were there to protect again indigenous people uprisings, and protection against rebellions and protests. No specific reference to Loyalists or Protection from the Government. Spelled out the requirements for firearms, ammo etc for the Militia members to own.

This commentary is not meant to support or negate gun ownership, but when I see comments like the above second amendment put in place to protect the people from the government, I look for support but don't see it. The fact that the government mentioned Militias and soon after clarified their use and the requirements for citizens to participate and provide weapons is enlightening to me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/)

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.

Debunked all the way back in 2009. But I guess there are folks who need 14 years to catch up.

[Normal]

Banning firearms on whatever level is crazy, because it can't work….

So--let's deal with reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky bee ess.

You won’t see me turn in my guns unless I want to. I paid for the right to have them with my 20 years active duty in the military defending the very Constitution that established our government.

I was just starting to state with very general terms and a lack of concise verbiage that certain guns belong in certain places. I’m not for crazy limits by any means. Yes, you can own a crossbow or AR 15 in the big city, but the ownership is impractical. It is also impractical to not own a firearm if you live in rural America.

[tophcfa]

I’m guessing the founding fathers considered arms the things that are attached to the shoulders and have hands on the other ends. You know, the things one uses to hold their firearms, golf clubs, pickle ball racquets, and stuff like that.

[Taltarzac725]

I’m guessing the founding fathers considered arms the things that are attached to the shoulders and have hands on the other ends. You know, the things one uses to hold their firearms, golf clubs, pickle ball racquets, and stuff like that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

This goes into it.

. As with all things constitutional, Americans are adapting 18th-century laws to fit 21st-century lives. But in reality, the concerns of the Founding Fathers had little to do with either side’s position in the modern gun-control debate. None of the issues animating that debate — from “stand your ground” laws to assault weapons bans — entered into the Founders’ thinking.

[Reiver]

I view the National Guard as what the Founding Fathers meant as to a well regulated militia.

A quote from George Mason, American planter, politician, Founding Father, and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."


He also stated:
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

[jimbomaybe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

This goes into it.
. As with all things constitutional, Americans are adapting 18th-century laws to fit 21st-century lives. But in reality, the concerns of the Founding Fathers had little to do with either side’s position in the modern gun-control debate. None of the issues animating that debate — from “stand your ground” laws to assault weapons bans — entered into the Founders’ thinking.

A much more gritty time in our countries history, people were hung for what today are minor property crimes, to day in some states you are required to try to escape from a person breaking into your home or attacking you, these ideas would be considered ridiculous and absurd, that you would have families with a heritage of criminal behavior and professional welfare assistance unbelievable

[Byte1]

Banning firearms on whatever level is crazy, because it can't work.

There are anywhere from 300 million to 1/2 BILLION firearms in America currently in private hands. There is "paper" (purchase and ownership records) on only a very small percentage of these firearms, 10% to 15% at most. It is only recently, in the history of this nation, that the government began requiring background checks on weapons, and there no record at all of sales before those requirements went into effect. Those guns could be anywhere.

OK. For the sake of discussion, let's say the federal government requires all citizens to turn in their firearms. Just how many of those 300 million to 1/2 billion firearms will be dutifully toted in to the nearest collection station and handed over? Well, we can assume that those in ILLEGAL hands aren't going anywhere. And the legal ones? Maybe 5% at most. Almost certainly less.

OK. So the government saddles up law enforcement and sends 'em out to collect the guns. It calls on the people that records show have been purchased by them. But (surprise surprise) just about all of the guns aren't in the possession of the original owners. They're lost, sold, junked or whatever the story is. Forcible searches with metal detectors, etc., will turn up a fair amount. But barely a blip on the radar. And the guns with no "paper"? Would law enforcement go to every house owned or rented by every American to conduct such searches? Two answers come to mind. No way and no how.

Even back in Minnesota, where blue is the primary color, I knew several LEOs who stated unequivocally that there would be no way they'd engage in such a search. They're sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the government. Quite a number of military apparently feel the same way. There'd be no quicker way for the government to instigate armed conflict than to try to take the guns away from the legal owners. And the government, despite all the caterwauling and hoopla, knows it.

So--let's deal with reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky bee ess.

Totally agree with your statement.
I would also add that IF/IF the gov. ever got froggy enough to assume they could TAKE/confiscate everyone's firearms, they would be causing/creating millions of new criminals in America. Because, there would only be a small minority of scared citizens that would allow the law to take away what little protection one has today. Yep, there would be MILLIONS of new criminals in the country, made from honorable, decent, normally law abiding citizens. I dare say that America would see what a REAL insurrection looks like. Not just a group of rambunctious, over eager protesters.

[ThirdOfFive]

A quote from George Mason, American planter, politician, Founding Father, and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."


He also stated:
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
Very true.

What a lot of people don't know, but what is a matter of historical fact, is that on April 19, 1775, the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought for this exact reason: to disarm the colonists. A detachment of British regulars, 700 in all under the command of Lt. Col. Francis Smith, was sent from the Boston garrison for the purpose of finding the colonists' weapons cache(s) and confiscating or destroying them. The colonists had gotten advance word the day before and were prepared.

One has to ask oneself; what would have happened had the British succeeded, and that "shot heard round the world" was never fired?

Freedom is never free. The colonists knew that and were prepared to pay for that freedom in blood. The result of that payment was the greatest nation the world has ever known.

There is a hard lesson there.

[Normal]

The Second Amendment provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The spirit and intent of the law was to protect every citizen from a government foreign or domestic that bullied individual rights. The amendment was a citizens “check” or recourse during a time when the British government was the bully. They even came back for a second attempt to “infringe “ their will on America in 1812.

As for a time when a citizen could own everything from a cannon to a blunderbuss, arms in this day and age are a lot less damaging (AR 15s are pop guns in comparison). Just the same, most of us aren’t going to go out and buy an RPG or a drone anytime soon. To limit someone with arms is ridiculous measure. The real enemy of our day is the self centered media, story climbing so that they can somehow glorify weapon misuse to serve their own purposes.

[MartinSE]

arms in this day and age are a lot less damaging (AR 15s are pop guns in comparison).

I forgot, how man y rounds per second is a cannon? I mean, yeah, if you want to huff and puff and blow down someones how, a cannon is better, but if you want to murder a class room of children, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice.

[ThirdOfFive]

I forgot, how man y rounds per second is a cannon? I mean, yeah, if you want to huff and puff and blow down someones how, a cannon is better, but if you want to murder a class room of children, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice.
Depends on who is doing the choosing, I guess.

AR-15s are chosen for one reason and one reason only; they've been so vilified in media that they've acquired the reputation as the total bada$$ gun of choice, and are thus picked by someone who, for whatever reason, wants his 15 minutes of fame (notoriety?) in media before he is either sent away for a VERY long time or is offed/offs himself during whatever process it is he had planned. But as firearms go they're not very efficient. Sure, you can squeeze off a lot of rounds, say 30 in as many seconds, but those bullets come out of the barrel one by one and each of those rounds have to be aimed to be efficient. If you're not trained in handling such a weapon there are going to be a lot more misses than hits.

Contrast that with, say, a 12-gauge open-choke shotgun holding eight rounds of ammo. That means that you send nearly a hundred 30-caliber balls downrange in probably half the time it takes Mr. Bada$$ to squeeze off 30. Trouble is, toting a shotgun around just doesn't have the same emotional impact as does an AR-15 style weapon.

Maybe we should be grateful for that.

[Taltarzac725]

Can Civilians Own Grenades? | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com (https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades)

Thank God these are illegal in most cases.

These are something that armies waging war need but are not arms that some hunter or house defender would have any legitimate use for.

[ThirdOfFive]

Can Civilians Own Grenades? | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com (https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades)

That God these are illegal in most cases.

These are something that armies waging war need but are not arms that some hunter or house defender would have any legitimate use for.
Necessity is the mother of invention.

Think "IED" and "Molotov Cocktail". Those two improvised weapons, along with the highly popular but not-very-accurate AK-47, soundly kicked Soviet butt back in the 80's to the point where eventually decided it just wasn't worth it, packed up and left. And let's face it; the Soviets had it all over the Afghanis when it came to high-tech weapons.

Pretty much the same with the Viet Cong back in the 60s and 70s.

Armed conflicts are not won with weapons, but with will.

[jebartle]

Just wondering, how quickly the gun laws would change if senators had children or grand-children killed in a mass shooting?

[MartinSE]

Depends on who is doing the choosing, I guess.

AR-15s are chosen for one reason and one reason only; they've been so vilified in media that they've acquired the reputation as the total bada$$ gun of choice, and are thus picked by someone who, for whatever reason, wants his 15 minutes of fame (notoriety?) in media before he is either sent away for a VERY long time or is offed/offs himself during whatever process it is he had planned. But as firearms go they're not very efficient. Sure, you can squeeze off a lot of rounds, say 30 in as many seconds, but those bullets come out of the barrel one by one and each of those rounds have to be aimed to be efficient. If you're not trained in handling such a weapon there are going to be a lot more misses than hits.

Contrast that with, say, a 12-gauge open-choke shotgun holding eight rounds of ammo. That means that you send nearly a hundred 30-caliber balls downrange in probably half the time it takes Mr. Bada$$ to squeeze off 30. Trouble is, toting a shotgun around just doesn't have the same emotional impact as does an AR-15 style weapon.

Maybe we should be grateful for that.

And none of that applies to the post saying that an AR-15 is not as deadly as a cannon or blunderbuss.

I also do agree that AR-15 has been glamorized in movies, cartoons, media, et al. And the makers advertiser it that way to youth. But, none of that changes that it is the weapon of choice for school shootings.

[MartinSE]

Just wondering, how quickly the gun laws would change if senators had children or grand-children killed in a mass shooting?

Hmm, now why would they care about their children? (sarcasm)

[Topspinmo]

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.


That is honest opinion.

[Babubhat]

Just wondering, how quickly the gun laws would change if senators had children or grand-children killed in a mass shooting?

Absolutely positively nothing. Don’t understand this thread at all. Only the SC matters

[Byte1]

Personally, if I was going to ANY enclosed structure where there was groups/crowds that I intended to shoot, I would find a semi-automatic such as a Glock 9mm (example) with a 30 round magazine. Actually, I would choose two of them. Pistols are more effective in close quarters, as far as I am concerned. But, real AR-15's are sometimes used today because they are used in video games and by those in combat. Actually, many rifles used in mass murders are actually, similar to AR-15's, not the actual AR-15s. But, most civilians do not know the difference between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol, let alone the differences in semiautomatic rifles. It won't matter if they take away the AR-15. It will just be replaced as a preference with something else equally as lethal.
Like I said before and again and again, to protect the children you must harden the physical security. Until you take that seriously, it will all be about ridding the decent folks of their big bad bang, bang guns.

[ThirdOfFive]

And none of that applies to the post saying that an AR-15 is not as deadly as a cannon or blunderbuss.

I also do agree that AR-15 has been glamorized in movies, cartoons, media, et al. And the makers advertiser it that way to youth. But, none of that changes that it is the weapon of choice for school shootings.

The point was that AR-15s are the "weapon of choice" not because of their efficiency but because of their notoriety.

Do people think that AR=15s still would be the "weapon of choice" when this mental midget or that is out seeking his 15 minutes of fame, had media NOT so vilified the AR-15 for literally weeks after every shooting where one is employed? I sure don't.

Many (half? Most?) of these shootings with AR-15s are copycat crimes, pure and simple. But the REAL crime is that we've known that for a couple of decades now, and still insist on allowing media to sensationalize the crime and the gun literally for weeks following the commission. WE are sacrificing those kids.

[Tom&JenC]

So was their attire. Can anyone imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in a wife beater shirt with a crass logo on it, wearing baggy shorts and Nike sneakers with no socks (hosiery) topped off with a baseball cap worn backwards? Maybe having some piercings, multiple earrings and facial tattoos?

Someone needs to do an "artist rendering" of this.

[Sarah_W]

Recently I came across a letter that John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail Adams in 1777. The majority of the letter complained of how he wished he could be home with his wife and children. The war was in progress and he was in Philadelphia with his obligations. I was struck by the last paragraph of his letter. It was a message to us, the posterity.

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

I truly believe that we have no idea the hardships they went through to gain our Liberty. We have no idea what they sacrificed.

The 55 men who met in Philadelphia and debated the issues for months were very educated, formally and self-educated. They chose each word carefully in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The dictionary standard in 1787 was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. My copy was printed in 1785.

If one is to understand their writings you must first understand the words they selected . You can access Johnson's Dictionary online here: Johnson's Dictionary Online (https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com)

To the question of this thread. If you truly want to know what our Founding Fathers meant by arms and arming citizens, just read their words.

Founding Fathers quotes on bearing arms

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[Sarah_W]

Someone needs to do an "artist rendering" of this.

Boxers or briefs might be the first consideration. :)

[Taltarzac725]

That still looks like the National Guard to me as a "well regulated" militia and not some group of Villagers, for instance, interested in guns.

Effect of the NRA (National Rifle Association) As a Citizens Special Interest Group Concerned With the Criminal Justice System | Office of Justice Programs (https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/effect-nra-national-rifle-association-citizens-special-interest)

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903)

The Supreme Court took a wrong turn mainly because of the intense lobbying by a changed NRA.


Recently I came across a letter that John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail Adams in 1777. The majority of the letter complained of how he wished he could be home with his wife and children. The war was in progress and he was in Philadelphia with his obligations. I was struck by the last paragraph of his letter. It was a message to us, the posterity.

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

I truly believe that we have no idea the hardships they went through to gain our Liberty. We have no idea what they sacrificed.

The 55 men who met in Philadelphia and debated the issues for months were very educated, formally and self-educated. They chose each word carefully in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The dictionary standard in 1787 was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. My copy was printed in 1785.

If one is to understand their writings you must first understand the words they selected . You can access Johnson's Dictionary online here: Johnson's Dictionary Online (https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com)

To the question of this thread. If you truly want to know what our Founding Fathers meant by arms and arming citizens, just read their words.

Founding Fathers quotes on bearing arms

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[Reiver]

I forgot, how man y rounds per second is a cannon? I mean, yeah, if you want to huff and puff and blow down someones how, a cannon is better, but if you want to murder a class room of children, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice.

The most successful mass murder in a school is still the 1927 Bath Township, MI massacre where 45 were killed and 58 wounded in the north wing with dynamite. The explosives in the south wing failed to detonate.

[MartinSE]

The most successful mass murder in a school is still the 1927 Bath Township, MI massacre where 45 were killed and 58 wounded in the north wing with dynamite. The explosives in the south wing failed to detonate.

So?

[mrf0151]

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.

no politics on here according to the rules.

[ThirdOfFive]

Recently I came across a letter that John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail Adams in 1777. The majority of the letter complained of how he wished he could be home with his wife and children. The war was in progress and he was in Philadelphia with his obligations. I was struck by the last paragraph of his letter. It was a message to us, the posterity.

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

I truly believe that we have no idea the hardships they went through to gain our Liberty. We have no idea what they sacrificed.

The 55 men who met in Philadelphia and debated the issues for months were very educated, formally and self-educated. They chose each word carefully in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The dictionary standard in 1787 was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. My copy was printed in 1785.

If one is to understand their writings you must first understand the words they selected . You can access Johnson's Dictionary online here: Johnson's Dictionary Online (https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com)

To the question of this thread. If you truly want to know what our Founding Fathers meant by arms and arming citizens, just read their words.

Founding Fathers quotes on bearing arms

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
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.

[DonH57]

Recently I came across a letter that John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail Adams in 1777. The majority of the letter complained of how he wished he could be home with his wife and children. The war was in progress and he was in Philadelphia with his obligations. I was struck by the last paragraph of his letter. It was a message to us, the posterity.

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

I truly believe that we have no idea the hardships they went through to gain our Liberty. We have no idea what they sacrificed.

The 55 men who met in Philadelphia and debated the issues for months were very educated, formally and self-educated. They chose each word carefully in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The dictionary standard in 1787 was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. My copy was printed in 1785.

If one is to understand their writings you must first understand the words they selected . You can access Johnson's Dictionary online here: Johnson's Dictionary Online (https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com)

To the question of this thread. If you truly want to know what our Founding Fathers meant by arms and arming citizens, just read their words.

Founding Fathers quotes on bearing arms

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

What some American citizens lack in knowledge of our country's history others lack in memory.

[Lindsyburnsy]

If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.

[ThirdOfFive]

If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.
The above is one of those misconceptions that, because of endless repetition, take on a life of their own. It has little if any basis in fact.

The NRA, in the instance(s) quoted, was merely following the wishes of law enforcement in the area where the convention(s) in question were being held. I have personally attended NRA events where carrying firearms wasn't prohibited by law, and where most of the people there were carrying.

[Byte1]

If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.

You are mistaken. The NRA does not ban weapons at their conventions.
Huffing Post: "The NRA posted an announcement on its website explaining that Secret Service barred carrying firearms into the convention because several prominent Republicans ― including former President Donald Trump ― will speak there. Attendees will also have to leave their selfie sticks"

[Sarah_W]

A little history on the Second Amendment.

James Madison is credited as the father of the Constitution. There were many equally important delegates representing their respective States during the debates and drafting of the Constitution. One of the most important in attendance was George Mason of Virginia. He was the architect of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was the template for our Bill of Rights.

Several delegates, including Mason, refused to sign the Constitution because Rights were not enshrined within its text. For the majority, including Madison, they did not want to enshrine the Rights within the Constitution because they were concerned it would be construed to limiting the Rights of the People to just those enumerated with the Constitution, a "parchment barrier". Many states made it clear their legislatures would not ratify the Constitution unless the Rights of the People were addressed.

The delegates struck a compromise and decided to handle this via Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Madison submitted 20 Amendments to the House of Representatives. These were debated and on August 24, 1787 the House approved 17 Amendments and sent them to the Senate. The Senate approved some, rejected some, and rewrote some, sending 12 Amendments back to the House. The House approved the 12 Amendments and sent them back to the Senate who also approved them. The Senate sent the 12 Amendments to the State legislatures on September 28, 1787. By December 17, 1791 the required 3/4 State approval had been reached on 10 Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. Two of the Amendments were rejected. One of the rejected Amendments was finally passed in 1992 becoming the 27th Amendment.

It is worth noting that the Rights were not enumerated in priority order. Our 1st Amendment was originally the 3rd Amendment, our 2nd Amendment was originally the 4th Amendment and the 27th Amendment was originally the 2nd Amendment.

*******

On the 2nd Amendment text.

This is the text as it was proposed by the House of Representatives to the Senate:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate rewrote the text and this is what was sent to the States and approved.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, we can look at the words above in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, which was the dictionary used by the Founding Fathers.

Definitions

Well regulated means to make regular as in well trained, such as the British Regulars.

Militia means trainbands or the part of the community trained to martial exercise

necessary means indispensably requisite

security means protection or defense

free means not enslaved

State means the public or community

Right means just claim

keep means to retain in custody

bear means to carry

arms means weapons of offense or armour of defense

infringed means violate, destroy or hinder

We can rewrite the 2nd Amendment using these definitions and it would be:

"A part of the community well trained to martial exercise, being indispensably requisite to the protection or defense of an unenslaved public, the just claim of the people to retain in custody and to carry weapons of offense or armour of defense, shall not be hindered, violated or destroyed."

I think it is important to note that for the first two years of the Revolutionary War it was fought entirely with privately owned arms. It was not until 1777 and the agreement with France were arms imported for the war effort.

The original text, the original meaning of the words, and the very writings of our Founding Fathers clearly, at that time and thereafter, expresses their intent to ensure that the People would always remain Free and not enslaved to a tyrannical government. It is understood that a government assumes its powers by the consent of the governed. Without the ability to withdraw that consent, by force when necessary, a people is enslaved to that government.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams son-in-law regarding the newly drafted Constitution. In his letter he stated:

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such 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."

I would encourage everyone who has not read the Declaration of Independence in a while to do so. It clearly expresses the mindset of our Founding Fathers.

Publius Returns – Sheltered in the shade of the Tree of Liberty is what separates Americans from the rest of the world. (http://publiusreturns.com)

[Sarah_W]

For anyone interested. I've started a new club in The Villages called the Constitution Study club. It can be found in the drop down menus above: Entertainment/Clubs and then search for Constitution.

It is new and we have not had a meeting yet. I'm reaching out to secure a meeting place at one of the Rec centers. I'm thinking of Bacall in the beginning and if it grows in size i'd like to move it to Eisenhower. Once I get that approval I will post the day and time.

I'm very passionate about the Constitution and have found when I speak in public on the topic it is truly a non-partisan topic. I still believe our Constitution is the answer to the distractions we face daily. In my personal library I have over 70 books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers at least half of my books are over 100 years old, the oldest being Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785.

[Taltarzac725]

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment)

This is interesting.

I had Constitutional Law at the U of MN Law School. It was taught by Daniel Farber. This was way back in 1986-1987 though.

He co-wrote one of the texts used by many law schools back then. This looks like one of the more current ones-- Farber, Eskridge, Frickey, and Schacter's Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century, 6th - 9781634607643 - West Academic (https://faculty.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?id=99592)

The Second Amendment in Law and History | The New Press (https://thenewpress.com/books/second-amendment-law-history)


Sorry! Something went wrong! (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=daniel+farber&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6KG_4u-R-QIVj-DICh35KgzGEAMYASAAEgLq-vD_BwE&hvadid=241571769240&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9052975&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15059559410042574401&hvtargid=kwd-40028700&hydadcr=10212_10333947&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_6d7gaz2m6n_e)

Guns (https://www.carltbogus.com/guns) Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University.


For anyone interested. I've started a new club in The Villages called the Constitution Study club. It can be found in the drop down menus above: Entertainment/Clubs and then search for Constitution.

It is new and we have not had a meeting yet. I'm reaching out to secure a meeting place at one of the Rec centers. I'm thinking of Bacall in the beginning and if it grows in size i'd like to move it to Eisenhower. Once I get that approval I will post the day and time.

I'm very passionate about the Constitution and have found when I speak in public on the topic it is truly a non-partisan topic. I still believe our Constitution is the answer to the distractions we face daily. In my personal library I have over 70 books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers at least half of my books are over 100 years old, the oldest being Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785.

[Sarah_W]

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment)

This is interesting.

I had Constitutional Law at the U of MN Law School. It was taught by Daniel Farber. This was way back in 1986-1987 though.

He co-wrote one of the texts used by many law schools back then. This looks like one of the more current ones-- Farber, Eskridge, Frickey, and Schacter's Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century, 6th - 9781634607643 - West Academic (https://faculty.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?id=99592)

The Second Amendment in Law and History | The New Press (https://thenewpress.com/books/second-amendment-law-history)


Sorry! Something went wrong! (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=daniel+farber&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6KG_4u-R-QIVj-DICh35KgzGEAMYASAAEgLq-vD_BwE&hvadid=241571769240&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9052975&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15059559410042574401&hvtargid=kwd-40028700&hydadcr=10212_10333947&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_6d7gaz2m6n_e)

Guns (https://www.carltbogus.com/guns) Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University.

I had Constitutional Law at University of California (Santa Barbara) but don't recall the professor's name. :) My interest has gone far beyond law studies to dig deeper in my own understanding and research for myself the original meanings. In that context I consider myself an Originalist to the text of the Constitution. It is, after all, the People document putting limitations on government not putting limitations on the People.

We are a nation of laws and the People are the final arbiters of those laws as reflected by those we elect to create said laws. I think we forget that.

Consider taking part in the Constitution Study club.

[Number 10 GI]

If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.

Where are these "many places" that don't require a background check? If you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer you are required to pass a background check. That is federal law and cannot be disregarded. Some states require a background check on sales between private individuals, however under federal law the sale is legal without a check. The law states that prohibited persons cannot purchase or possess a firearm, it is a felony crime.

I went to the NRA convention in Nashville a few years back and the convention center where the event was held, a property owned by the city of Nashville, had the policy of no firearms on the premises, not the NRA. The NRA doesn't own convention centers, the organization rent the facilities and must follow the rules of the owning authority.

[Blueblaze]

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.

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!

[TNLAKEPANDA]

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 what! Everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family. Legally armed citizens are NOT the problem. Guns are NOT the problem either.

Wake up!

[ThirdOfFive]

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!
Interesting post, and points. Appreciated.

One has to consider the efficiency of the weapon within the context of how it was used. From the Revolution up to (and through, in many cases) the Civil War, armed conflicts, excluding of course guerrilla-type fighting, armies fought rank upon rank, shoulder to shoulder. In that type of fighting the Brown Bess was devastating, particularly because many troops adopted the "buck and ball" load: a single ball of the caliber of the musket in question (in the case of the Brown Bess, a .75 caliber ball, though the concept was adopted for other similar weapons as well), with several round lead balls of smaller caliber rammed on the top of the large ball. It wasn't very accurate but a distances of 50 yards or less (the average distance between the combatant forces) but it didn't have to be. The effect was similar to a shotgun with single- or double-00 buckshot, "devastating" is a mild word to use. No good at anything approaching long range, but it didn't have to be.

Modern arms are governed (more or less) by the Hague Convention of 1899, which evolved, more or less, into the Geneva Convention rules, which didn't exist back then. No exploding rounds, no expanding bullets, etc. But the post to which this response is directed is correct. I don't want to be shot by anything, but if I had no other choice BUT to be shot, I'd choose the .223 round over the Brown Bess and similar weapons' "buck and ball" load any time.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Imagine those big white wigs, short heavy pants, ruffled shirts and vests being worn now? Not any crazier looking than saggy pants and backward hats.

[Taltarzac725]

Sickness and Disease in the Continental Army | David W. Johnston (https://www.amwellridge.com/blog/sickness-and-disease-in-the-continental-army)

Lack of knowledge about medicine and supplies were a huge problem for Revolutionary War soldiers.

Wound infection was depressingly common. Battlefields were often farmland that had been contaminated with bacteria containing animal feces for years. Surgical procedures were carried out with no understanding of antisepsis and no attempt to prevent wound contamination. In fact, it was universally accepted that wounds would not heal until they had begun to drain so-called laudable pus, a situation that we now understand to be the result of staph infection. During the Revolution, approximately 25 percent of the wounded who were admitted to hospitals died, and the vast majority of those succumbed to unrelated infections. In the final analysis, bacteria killed far more soldiers in the early republic than did bullets.

Science gets better in most areas.

We should try to do better, though, with the understanding of mental illness. That science has a very long journey ahead of it to get anywhere near knowledge of the human body.

[jimjamuser]

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.
Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

[jimjamuser]

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." (Thomas Jefferson--among others).

So true. Our system was set up so that the government SERVES the people, not the other way around.
Our system is on shaky ground due to newer media that can confuse people and bend the truth. Some of that bending originates in Russia. Like buyer - beware.....we now have media consumer - beware!

[jimjamuser]

I don't and my post was snarky. I apologize. It seems so many one liners, I thought maybe that is all some can focus on.

And uh, yes, we DO close the bars, there are operating hours.

And uh, yes, the AR-15 is just a tool that is the tool of choice for killing children in schools. Only HERE, no where else in the world (at our rate).

And no, removing all AR15's (can't be done) would not solve the problem, and I have NEVER advocated that. I would like it, but I know it is not possible. So, instead I am for things like universal background checks - n o responsible gun owner can come up with any explanation why they is bad - but many try with things like "the government has no rights to do that, I have a right to a gun". And so, for what 50 years now, we have been arguing while children die.
Australia eliminated all AR-15 and ANY other semi-auto rifle and their mass murder rate dropped to zero. That is what a smart country that is not dominated by gun manufacturers does for its citizens. They put citizens' lives above the profits of the gun manufacturers. They still allow bold action rifles to be used by hunters and target shooters.

[jimjamuser]

I view the National Guard as what the Founding Fathers meant as to a well regulated militia. And the gunpowder, artillery, etc., for this militia would be kept under lock-and-keys.

The individual private citizens would become members of this militia. And would use the arms they use for hunting and defending themselves against natural threats like bears, wolves, etc., and Native Americans on the war path.

Wolves were hunted pretty much out of existence in New England.

The Outside Story: Northeastern wolves: Then and now | Opinion | benningtonbanner.com (https://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/the-outside-story-northeastern-wolves-then-and-now/article_f957ed54-1295-5c1c-9e52-5e19e93640f3.html)
Hunters are fine with bolt actions. Many of the best trophy hunters use a single-shot rifle because it is lighter. They hunt in the more rugged territory and walk and stalk for greater distances because they pass up shots. A semi-auto rifle makes a hunter more likely to spray bullets around and hope rather than concentrating on ONE ACCURATE shot.

[jimjamuser]

Ya, we never will get nukes. But deterrence is important too. Of course speaking of wolves, they are one of the few instances where a large capacity semiautomatic rifle is needed. When a pack tries to take down a head of cattle, ranchers are happy to have several shots available.
At the 1st shot, the wolves will spook and move so fast that even a semi-auto can't load fast enough to get a 2nd shot off. A large magazine is just extra weight and would not EVEN help with shooting prairie dogs. They go underground after the 1st shot.

[jimjamuser]

I have owned guns most of my life primarily to hunt and target shoot with my Dad and a few close friends. When Dad passed and I retired, I retired my hunting guns and moved to Florida. Golf is my primary hobby and I love the game but it sure would have been nice if he had bought me a set of golf clubs along with that BB gun and first shotgun. I still have a couple of personal guns at home that actually belonged to my Dad and a close friend. We never had any thoughts or discussions about having any gun to protect us from “the Government”. That just seems “weird” to me but to each his own. Fore
Fear of the big bad government is a TOOL used to separate gun enthusiasts from their money to the tune of up to $5,000 per rifle. Hunting rifles cost less. About 1990 Americans lost interest in hunting and the outdoors and factory farms made for fewer game animals and hunting areas than the older smaller farms provided. So to keep up their profits the manufacturers pointed young city-dwelling MEN toward paintball and then convinced them that they NEEDED expensive semi-auto rifles (just like GI joe and Sue) in case they needed to fight their government in the streets in pitched battles house to house.

[jimjamuser]

Other than revolvers and some shotguns, aren't the vast majority of guns semi auto?
No! Most rifles are bolt-action. There are also single-shot rifles and shotguns and double-barrel shotguns. And some other varieties.

[jimjamuser]

You could interpret it as that. Most firearms, other than single-shot ones where you have to physically eject the spent cartridge and load another one by hand, will fire rapidly, the advantage of the semi-auto being that you can fire the rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. A double-action revolver for example will also fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, the limiting factor being that your finger supplies the energy to rotate the cylinder and cycle the hammer, so "as fast as you can pull the trigger" is somewhat slower than with a semi-auto pistol.

But even a lever-action rifle can be fired rapidly. Back in the day my uncle Vic, who hunted deer with a 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, had the reputation of being able to fire off the seventh round before the first one got to the target. May have been slightly exaggerated, but he WAS fast. Not accurate, but fast.
A well-worn and oiled PUMP-ACTION rifle or shotgun can be fired by an expert faster than a semi-auto.

[jimjamuser]

the reason is to fend off tyranny / the government, if they decide to take over. To have the ability to defend against the "standing army" I don't think flint locks or sabers would have much of a chance. The amendment is not for sport shooters / hunters or the such
The point is that in the US today because of so many mass murders that are INCREASING - there is a trade-off that needs to be made........which is more important..... lowering the number of mass murders or using semi-auto rifles for hunting or self-protection from burglars and the REMOTE possibility of a tyrannical US government - when bolt action rifles would be able to do ALL those things 90% as well.
Australia chose to eliminate the semi-auto rifles. I considered that a smart choice and a good trade-off.

[TrapX]

The constitution was written with general words that describe a whole group of things when they meant ALL of the group. Some simple examples of groups of things vs specific things.
Books... dictionary (a subset of all books)
Food... wheat (a subset of all foods)
Speech... newspapers (a subset of all types of speech)
Shall... will (just a portion of the meaning of shall)
Religion... Christianity (a subset of all religions)
Arms... musket (a subset of all arms) If they meant muskets, then why did they not say it that way? Simply put, they meant all arms for all of the population.

[jimjamuser]

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!
Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

[ThirdOfFive]

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.
Except that there is no way we will ever get rid of semi-automatic firearms. There are just too many of them in private hands, and most with absolutely no record of who purchased them or who the current owners are.

First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not limited (despite what a lot of people think) to AR-15 type weapons. Best estimates are about 15 million AR-15 - type weapons in private hands with about another 3 million AK - types (guns dot com). Add to that another several million (probably) military surplus - type rifles such as the M1 Garand and Carbine which were put into civilian hands by the truckload after WWII for practically peanuts.

But it isn't just military-style semi-autos. Semi-automatics for sporting purposes have been sold in the U.S. ever since 1903 and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of calibers, variations, etc. etc. out there. And add to that the millions of semi-auto handguns that are in private hands (estimated 85% of all handgun purchases since 1990 have been of semi-auto pistols) and the sheer number becomes staggering. In close quarters a semi-auto handgun is just as deadly as a rifle if not more so, and high-capacity clips are everywhere. The Kel-Tec PMR-30 for example can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum ammo. Then there are the hybrids; semi-auto rifles that use pistol ammo, with the magazines often being interchangeable: the Ruger PC Carbine, for example, which is a semi-auto rifle that comes stock with a 17-round clip...but it will also accept Glock 9 MM pistol clips up to 33 rounds, so one can own both a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol that uses the exact same ammo and clips, and are interchangeable.

Then, of course, there is the .22 long rifle rimfire cartridge, the cartridge which, according to some, has killed more people than any other single cartridge. I'm not sure I believe that but considering the sheer number of semi-auto pistols and rifles out there chambering the cartridge, I suppose it is possible.

But just on the assumption that our government DOES decide to ban semi-autos...just how would that, realistically speaking, be accomplished?

[Kenswing]

Fear of the big bad government is a TOOL used to separate gun enthusiasts from their money to the tune of up to $5,000 per rifle. Hunting rifles cost less. About 1990 Americans lost interest in hunting and the outdoors and factory farms made for fewer game animals and hunting areas than the older smaller farms provided. So to keep up their profits the manufacturers pointed young city-dwelling MEN toward paintball and then convinced them that they NEEDED expensive semi-auto rifles (just like GI joe and Sue) in case they needed to fight their government in the streets in pitched battles house to house.

$5,000 per rifle? :1rotfl: :1rotfl: Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?

[Sarah_W]

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

Wrong. 75-77% of mass shootings in the US are done with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.

• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)

[jimjamuser]

Except that there is no way we will ever get rid of semi-automatic firearms. There are just too many of them in private hands, and most with absolutely no record of who purchased them or who the current owners are.

First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not limited (despite what a lot of people think) to AR-15 type weapons. Best estimates are about 15 million AR-15 - type weapons in private hands with about another 3 million AK - types (guns dot com). Add to that another several million (probably) military surplus - type rifles such as the M1 Garand and Carbine which were put into civilian hands by the truckload after WWII for practically peanuts.

But it isn't just military-style semi-autos. Semi-automatics for sporting purposes have been sold in the U.S. ever since 1903 and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of calibers, variations, etc. etc. out there. And add to that the millions of semi-auto handguns that are in private hands (estimated 85% of all handgun purchases since 1990 have been of semi-auto pistols) and the sheer number becomes staggering. In close quarters a semi-auto handgun is just as deadly as a rifle if not more so, and high-capacity clips are everywhere. The Kel-Tec PMR-30 for example can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum ammo. Then there are the hybrids; semi-auto rifles that use pistol ammo, with the magazines often being interchangeable: the Ruger PC Carbine, for example, which is a semi-auto rifle that comes stock with a 17-round clip...but it will also accept Glock 9 MM pistol clips up to 33 rounds, so one can own both a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol that uses the exact same ammo and clips, and are interchangeable.

Then, of course, there is the .22 long rifle rimfire cartridge, the cartridge which, according to some, has killed more people than any other single cartridge. I'm not sure I believe that but considering the sheer number of semi-auto pistols and rifles out there chambering the cartridge, I suppose it is possible.

But just on the assumption that our government DOES decide to ban semi-autos...just how would that, realistically speaking, be accomplished?
1st step would be to stop making new ones or at least selling new ones in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Then whenever a semi-auto rifle was used in a crime or found in a criminal's hands it would either be melted down or sold somewhere like Africa. Then, there could be government buy-backs of semi-auto rifles. It would probably take 30 years or so of this to have a big effect on mass murders. But, at least they would start going down. Since mass murders are on the increase, at least this would save some of your grandchildren's children's lives. Law-abiding citizens could still keep their semi-auto weapons, but any magazine over say 5 rounds would be illegal to possess and there would be a fine given.
.........Personally, I would want the same thing to happen with semi-auto pistols after about 10 years from now.
.........I know that none of that will actually happen because the NRA and the gun manufacturers care more about money than American childrens' lives and they have their DEVIL hooks into the average gun owner

[jimjamuser]

$5,000 per rifle? :1rotfl: :1rotfl: Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?
Thanks, nice that you care.

[jimjamuser]

$5,000 per rifle? :1rotfl: :1rotfl: Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?
Fully accessorized (like Barbie) AR-15 types could push $5,000. The 2 that the Uvalde shooter used were $2 K each and they did not even have scopes. And there are a lot more accessories available at high-profit. margins

[jimjamuser]

Wrong. 75-77% of mass shootings in the US are done with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.

• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)
Yes, that is true. But, the AR-15 is still the weapon of choice by the most hard-core mass murderers. They can kill from a protective distance with rifles as opposed to pistols which put them closer to their target. We both know that with iron sights a rifle has a longer sight radius than a pistol so the rifle is very much more accurate in an average shooter's hands Also, a rifle gives a steadier 2-hand hold than a pistol for increased accuracy.
The statistics that you quoted merely means that pistols are more available in the home than are rifles. Statistics can be misleading. But, the rifle is a superior killing tool to the pistol for attacking crowds of people. And obviously, if pistols were better at mass murder, then the armies of the world would carry only pistols, not rifles.

[Sarah_W]

Australia eliminated all AR-15 and ANY other semi-auto rifle and their mass murder rate dropped to zero. That is what a smart country that is not dominated by gun manufacturers does for its citizens. They put citizens' lives above the profits of the gun manufacturers. They still allow bold action rifles to be used by hunters and target shooters.

Disarming their citizens is what allowed Australia to forcefully remove people from their homes and put them into Covid concentration camps.
Video: Australia forcing people into quarantine camps despite negative COVID tests, reports say | American Military News (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/12/video-australia-forcing-people-into-quarantine-camps-despite-negative-covid-tests-reports-say/)

It is easy to take away your Rights when you can't defend yourself.

Police State: Australia Recaptures Three Teens Who Escaped COVID Concentration Camp (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/12/02/police-state-australia-recaptures-three-teens-who-escaped-covid-concentration-camp-want-to-guess-their-test-results-n2600008)

[Sarah_W]

Hunters are fine with bolt actions. Many of the best trophy hunters use a single-shot rifle because it is lighter. They hunt in the more rugged territory and walk and stalk for greater distances because they pass up shots. A semi-auto rifle makes a hunter more likely to spray bullets around and hope rather than concentrating on ONE ACCURATE shot.

Clearly you've never been hunting. A bolt action rifle is not lighter than a semi automatic rifle. Most hunters use semi automatic rifles and shotguns for small game, large game, and foul. Hunters are extremely safe with their firearm manipulations and don't "spray bullets around" nor do they "hope". Hunting is a skille and humanely taking the prey is an art form. I'm happy to take you hunting so that you can speak from experience.

[Sarah_W]

At the 1st shot, the wolves will spook and move so fast that even a semi-auto can't load fast enough to get a 2nd shot off. A large magazine is just extra weight and would not EVEN help with shooting prairie dogs. They go underground after the 1st shot.

Again, clearly this is not the voice of experience but the voice of fantasy. A wolf can do a short burst from 31-37 mph. American Pronghorn Antelope can hit a top speed of 61 mph. Hunters shoot them every year.

[Sarah_W]

Fear of the big bad government is a TOOL used to separate gun enthusiasts from their money to the tune of up to $5,000 per rifle. Hunting rifles cost less. About 1990 Americans lost interest in hunting and the outdoors and factory farms made for fewer game animals and hunting areas than the older smaller farms provided. So to keep up their profits the manufacturers pointed young city-dwelling MEN toward paintball and then convinced them that they NEEDED expensive semi-auto rifles (just like GI joe and Sue) in case they needed to fight their government in the streets in pitched battles house to house.

Hunting licenses peaked in 1980 at 17 million. Last year 15 million licenses were issued. Even that 10% decline is causing serious conservation problems and a significant increase in disease among various species of game animals.

Anyone who does not fear the power of the government is being foolish. Kindly give us a list of rifles that cost $5,000 or more and the sales figures. AR styled rifles are predominantly used in shooting sports (3 gun competitions), hunting wild boar and ferrel hogs, and target practice. Of course, anti-gun people don't let facts get in the way of spewing nonsense.

[Sarah_W]

No! Most rifles are bolt-action. There are also single-shot rifles and shotguns and double-barrel shotguns. And some other varieties.

50% of all firearms produced are semi-automatic. Bolt action, lever action, pump action, breach action

The first semi-automatic rifle was produced in 1885, first semi-automatic pistol was produced in 1892 and the first semi-automatic shotgun was produced in 1902. They've been around for over 125 years. All of a sudden anti-gun people who refuse to be educated on the subject make wild claims rooted in their imagination.

I'd be happy to meet you at the range and give you a free lesson.

[Reiver]

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

While it is true that Australians were forced to sell their now-illegal firearms back to the state in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, the country does permit restricted private firearm sales. Evidence suggests that the number of firearms reported in Australia has in fact increased since 1996.

[Sarah_W]

A well-worn and oiled PUMP-ACTION rifle or shotgun can be fired by an expert faster than a semi-auto.

Can you name that expert?

The typical cyclic rate of a semi-automatic rifle is 600-900 rounds per minute, or 10-15 rounds per second. Most semi-automatic rifles are magazine fed with 10-30 round magazines. Therefore, a shooter would empty that magazine in 1-3 seconds and need to reload.

Pump action rifles are not common. The Remington Model 7600 for example is a pump action rifle available in four calibers. It's capacity ranges from 4 to 10. Attempting to operate a pump action at any speed resembling a semi-automatic would require a significant amount of arm movement which in turn would move the muzzle all of the place and most certainly not on target. That very reason is why most hunter opt for a semi-automatic. A lever action would be even slower unless it's been modified for speed competition.

Again, let's go to the range so you can gain some first hand knowledge.

[Reiver]

So?

I'm glad you asked. I guess you missed the fact that I was answering your postulation:

I forgot, how man y rounds per second is a cannon? I mean, yeah, if you want to huff and puff and blow down someones how, a cannon is better, but if you want to murder a class room of children, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice.

You think about as well as you can spell..

[Sarah_W]

The point is that in the US today because of so many mass murders that are INCREASING - there is a trade-off that needs to be made........which is more important..... lowering the number of mass murders or using semi-auto rifles for hunting or self-protection from burglars and the REMOTE possibility of a tyrannical US government - when bolt action rifles would be able to do ALL those things 90% as well.
Australia chose to eliminate the semi-auto rifles. I considered that a smart choice and a good trade-off.

Mass shootings are increasing because young men are seeking notoriety. It has nothing to do with the choice of firearm. The point is, it takes a mentally ill person to kill innocent people they don't know. A normal person does not do that, regardless how many firearms they own. We can stop mass shootings right now by banning gun ownership by males. Women don't do that.

According to the FBI the average home invasion is 3-5 armed individuals. If you are in a gun fight with bad people what type of weapon is a personal choice. For me, I prefer a semi-automatic pistol. One thing for certain. Nobody who has ever won a gun fight complained of having too much ammunition.

You can be certain of this. Criminals don't care how many laws you make nor how many guns you ban, they will still shoot you.

Armed law abiding citizens use their firearm 2.5 million times each year. It is estimated that between 50-75% of those interactions saved lives.

[Sarah_W]

Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

The military chose the 5.56/.223 round to allow troops to carry more rounds into combat. The higher muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second created enough terminal force while maintaining lighter recoil for quicker follow up shots.

[affald]

They also had different: indoor plumbing, cars, airplanes, golf courses, 65" TV's, new balance tennis shoes, soft serve ice-cream, amazon prime deals and waaaay different xfinity back then! Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....
:posting:

Nominate for best post of the year.

[Sarah_W]

1st step would be to stop making new ones or at least selling new ones in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Then whenever a semi-auto rifle was used in a crime or found in a criminal's hands it would either be melted down or sold somewhere like Africa. Then, there could be government buy-backs of semi-auto rifles. It would probably take 30 years or so of this to have a big effect on mass murders. But, at least they would start going down. Since mass murders are on the increase, at least this would save some of your grandchildren's children's lives. Law-abiding citizens could still keep their semi-auto weapons, but any magazine over say 5 rounds would be illegal to possess and there would be a fine given.
.........Personally, I would want the same thing to happen with semi-auto pistols after about 10 years from now.
.........I know that none of that will actually happen because the NRA and the gun manufacturers care more about money than American childrens' lives and they have their DEVIL hooks into the average gun owner

That is a non-effective plan and would fail from the beginning.

A better plan is to secure our schools in a manner similar to a school in Indiana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This type of retrofit could happen nationwide over the course of summer break. Additionally, states should implement a program like Florida did. The guardian program can be found here: Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program (https://www.fldoe.org/safe-schools/guardian-program.stml)

How about volunteering to protect a school in your area?

Another option would be to arm every adult in the school with a non-lethal option such as the Byrna pepper gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5db0qRMJSfs

Incidentally, over 200 police departments are looking at the Byrna to replace tazers as their non-lethal option.

[Sarah_W]

Yes, that is true. But, the AR-15 is still the weapon of choice by the most hard-core mass murderers. They can kill from a protective distance with rifles as opposed to pistols which put them closer to their target. We both know that with iron sights a rifle has a longer sight radius than a pistol so the rifle is very much more accurate in an average shooter's hands Also, a rifle gives a steadier 2-hand hold than a pistol for increased accuracy.
The statistics that you quoted merely means that pistols are more available in the home than are rifles. Statistics can be misleading. But, the rifle is a superior killing tool to the pistol for attacking crowds of people. And obviously, if pistols were better at mass murder, then the armies of the world would carry only pistols, not rifles.

What is a hard core mass murderer? The worst school mass murderer used dynamite in Bath, Michigan. With all due respect Jim, firearms, mass shootings and ballistics are not in your wheelhouse. Perhaps stick to subjects you're well versed in.

A firearms is only as effective as the person on the trigger. I'll make a fun wager with you. I'll give you an AR or other semi-automatic rifle of your choice and I will use my 9mm Beretta 92FS semi-automatic handgun. Our target is a 12" x18" steel target at 400 yards. I'm confident I will hit that target before you will. It's simple geometry and ballistics.

Interesting fact. More people are killed each year with hammers and with fists that all rifles combined. What do we do about that?

[Taltarzac725]

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have considered crossbows, bows, spears, javelins, swords, daggers, knives, etc., as "arms"?

[Byte1]

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have considered crossbows, bows, spears, javelins, swords, daggers, knives, etc., as "arms"?

I am sure that they would prefer that citizens had FIREARMS. Just for fun, I wonder what OUR country today would rather we had if we were invaded, semi-automatic weapons or bolt action weapons. What would you rather law enforcement have to defend you, a semi-auto pistol or a revolver in the case of a robbery?

This gun control debate is exactly that. Certain folks wish to control the debate, as they would control self defense. Self defense is not considered until certain folks find themselves in a dangerous situation, where immediate action is needed in seconds and the closest police are minutes away.

If you can't protect your own family then how can you protect your country during an invasion? What is the difference between self defense and defending your country, state, neighborhood, family, yourself?

Ignorance begets fear and fear begets irrational reactions.

Remember the Texas MASS shooting by Whitman where 14 were killed and 31 wounded? He started his killing by stabbing family members, then used mostly a bolt action hunting rifle to kill and wound dozens of others. Just a reminder that it is not a particular rifle that is the villain. It is the evil of the person that perpetrates the killings that is at fault. Get rid of the guns and you will still have murders. I believe the first murders in history were by stone and/or stick.

[ThirdOfFive]

1st step would be to stop making new ones or at least selling new ones in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Then whenever a semi-auto rifle was used in a crime or found in a criminal's hands it would either be melted down or sold somewhere like Africa. Then, there could be government buy-backs of semi-auto rifles. It would probably take 30 years or so of this to have a big effect on mass murders. But, at least they would start going down. Since mass murders are on the increase, at least this would save some of your grandchildren's children's lives. Law-abiding citizens could still keep their semi-auto weapons, but any magazine over say 5 rounds would be illegal to possess and there would be a fine given.
.........Personally, I would want the same thing to happen with semi-auto pistols after about 10 years from now.
.........I know that none of that will actually happen because the NRA and the gun manufacturers care more about money than American childrens' lives and they have their DEVIL hooks into the average gun owner
I agree that it will never happen, but for different reasons.

In my opinion the NRA is merely a handy bogieman for the anti-gun folks. The NRA at its peak in 2018 never had more than 5.5 million members. But to NOT blame the NRA would mean that the anti-gun people would have to accept that there are other reasons that so many people own guns, such as law-abiding people strongly supporting the Second Amendment, and the necessity that citizens be armed to protect themselves against government overreach. Things like that.

It is an interesting paradox, though. If one accepts the argument that most Americans strongly favor more stringent laws relating to gun ownership, then natural question is: why don't legislators CHANGE those laws? after all, legislators are elected by citizens, and what legislator would go directly against the wishes of his or her constituents? The words "political suicide" comes to mind. Additionally, the argument that these legislators are bought off by NRA money is patently ridiculous: the NRA doesn't vote.

No. Gun laws don't change because America's legislators by and large won't risk their careers by supporting something their constituents DON'T want to change.

[Normal]

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.

“Arms” were a means to repel government tyranny (British or other) which happened to be devices like cannons and flintlocks back in the day.

The right to bear arms came from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. It was copied verbatim into a draft that made the top 10 list for our Bill of Rights. It provided the citizenry a means to get rid of James II which the newest William and Mary happily conceded to sign onto.

It had made it from the 4th most important priority to the 2nd by final adoption. It was and is still very significant to maintenance of freedom and democracy.

[Bay Kid]

Just look at what Hollywood does with guns. There are shows that kill many people every show. Gun control is just about control.

[Wyseguy]

So was their attire. Can anyone imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in a wife beater shirt with a crass logo on it, wearing baggy shorts and Nike sneakers with no socks (hosiery) topped off with a baseball cap worn backwards? Maybe having some piercings, multiple earrings and facial tattoos?

Now it is all I can imagine.

[Wyseguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser View Post
Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

I believe you are mistaken, but I am willing to research it. Are you sure you meant to say the military went to a 22 caliber cartridge?

[Wyseguy]

Interesting fact. More people are killed each year with hammers and with fists that all rifles combined. What do we do about that?


OK, anyone caught using their arms and fists to kill someone has their arms cut off and incinerated, then make them wear a t-shirt that says arms are meant for hugging.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser View Post
Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

I believe you are mistaken, but I am willing to research it. Are you sure you meant to say the military went to a 22 caliber cartridge?

When we went to Barstow/Ft. Irwin to practice, some rifles had 22 adapters to save on ammunition costs. It wasn’t a caliber used for wartime. Basic training installations and academy programs almost always used 22s for practice.

[Wyseguy]

When we went to Barstow/Ft. Irwin to practice, some rifles had 22 adapters to save on ammunition costs. It wasn’t a caliber used for wartime.

Thank you for clearing that up. I guess the caliber does not matter too much if you are looking to get the movements into memory.

[Wyseguy]

A well-worn and oiled PUMP-ACTION rifle or shotgun can be fired by an expert faster than a semi-auto.

I'm sorry to question you but I just do not see that as being true. Of course if you gave my Mother in Law an AR15, and I had a pump action shotgun there is a CHANCE I could fire more quickly. In the hands of shooters with similar skills I do not see a pump action ever being as fast (and definitely not as accurate) as a semi auto.

[Kenklaw]

The 2nd amendment is meant to protect the citizenry from governmental over-reach not to protect the government from the citizens. As well as personal protection from would be attacks from criminals.

[Wyseguy]

$5,000 per rifle? :1rotfl: :1rotfl: Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?

I always wanted to purchase a 1911, as that was the gun I was taught on. This was before the government switched to the 92 9mm Beretta.
It is just imo a superior simple consistent choice. Price and comfort always lead me to purchase something different.

[Normal]

I'm sorry to question you but I just do not see that as being true. Of course if you gave my Mother in Law an AR15, and I had a pump action shotgun there is a CHANCE I could fire more quickly. In the hands of shooters with similar skills I do not see a pump action ever being as fast (and definitely not as accurate) as a semi auto.
We are certainly fortunate that many mass shooters don’t use shotguns. They are much more devastating in certain situations. Imagine if a pump with extenders was used in Uvalde. There would have been a lot more victims than we had for sure.

[ThirdOfFive]

We are certainly fortunate that many mass shooters don’t use shotguns. They are much more devastating in certain situations. Imagine if a pump with extenders was used in Uvalde. There would have been a lot more victims than we had for sure.
Bingo.

Maybe we should be thankful for media vilifying the AR-15 - type weapon instead of other freely-available weapons that could cause a lot more damage.

[jimjamuser]

Disarming their citizens is what allowed Australia to forcefully remove people from their homes and put them into Covid concentration camps.
Video: Australia forcing people into quarantine camps despite negative COVID tests, reports say | American Military News (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/12/video-australia-forcing-people-into-quarantine-camps-despite-negative-covid-tests-reports-say/)

It is easy to take away your Rights when you can't defend yourself.

Police State: Australia Recaptures Three Teens Who Escaped COVID Concentration Camp (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/12/02/police-state-australia-recaptures-three-teens-who-escaped-covid-concentration-camp-want-to-guess-their-test-results-n2600008)
Australia did NOT disarm its citizens. And I would NOT recommend that for America. Australia DID melt down its semi-auto rifles which were causing its mass murders to increase. After Australia did that, mass murders went to zero. That is what I am saying and it is a historic lesson that America should be aware of (most aren't) and seek to emulate. The US has an INCREASING mass murder PROBLEM and the Australian example is a SOLUTION. This mass murder PROBLEM likely will increase more and could come to TV Land, which has some soft targets like big churches and the squares. At least I have proposed a SOLUTION to this problem. It may not be a perfect solution because it would change the status quo and the hooks in America by the gun lobby. I am not for gun confiscation in America or for taking away the means to prevent government tyranny. I am for sporting rifles that could be used in the RARE case of an American government going crazy ballistic against its citizens. These AR-15-type weapons and Russian Ak-47-type rifles are just OVERKILL for US civilian use and are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. I am saying that there should be a BALANCE between what the NRA wants to see a US citizen and the wanton, INCREASING mass murders of children and adults that we ARE experiencing and that we WILL be experiencing. BALANCE is everything!
As far as Australia and COVID go.......I don't live in Australia, so I am not expert enough on the Australian medical system and the severity of its Covid outbreak to say whether they did the wrong thing or the right thing in THEIR case. I just applaud their SOLUTION to their mass murder problem and I WISH that America could follow their example!

[jimjamuser]

Clearly you've never been hunting. A bolt action rifle is not lighter than a semi automatic rifle. Most hunters use semi automatic rifles and shotguns for small game, large game, and foul. Hunters are extremely safe with their firearm manipulations and don't "spray bullets around" nor do they "hope". Hunting is a skille and humanely taking the prey is an art form. I'm happy to take you hunting so that you can speak from experience.
Sorry, but I have done plenty of hunting. I have a mounted pronghorn antelope to prove that. I shot a badger with a bow and arrow. I have shot many squirrels, pheasants, doves, crows, quail, rabbits, and snakes with a Noble manufactured 16 gauge shotgun that my parents gave me for a present when I was 12. I had a large collection of antique military bolt action rifles which I restored and did some gunsmithing on. I had a subscription to outdoor life for 20 years, and also some gun magazines when they were devoted to hunting rifles. About 1980 the gun magazines started to run articles mostly about modern military man killing rifles and I STOPPED buying them. I also hunted fish underwater with a speargun extensively when I lived in Miami. Saw many large barracuda and sea turtles but never a shark underwater. My father caught one while we were fishing. I also carried a rifle for protection one summer in bear country in Alaska. And about 5 years ago, I hunted in the Ocala national forest off of rt.42 near TV Land.
........ So, basically, I have seen my share of hunting and fishing activity. I am not some newbie as might be imagined. When I talk about guns, I have a background. Some can disagree with my conclusions but they can't discount me as some neophyte!

[jimjamuser]

Clearly you've never been hunting. A bolt action rifle is not lighter than a semi automatic rifle. Most hunters use semi automatic rifles and shotguns for small game, large game, and foul. Hunters are extremely safe with their firearm manipulations and don't "spray bullets around" nor do they "hope". Hunting is a skille and humanely taking the prey is an art form. I'm happy to take you hunting so that you can speak from experience.
I think I said that a single shot was light and many expert hunters carried them for non-dangerous game trophy hunting. As far as hunters are so safe and conscientious ......I can't tell you how many times on the opening day of deer season, that I have observed hunters pointing their guns at me and using their scope to determine if I was a deer or whatever. I have seen pheasant hunters get sprayed luckily at long distances by shot pellets from other hunters. And I have seen pictures of farmers that have written "COW" on their animals right before opening day - when most of the hunters are completely DRUNK. I have no illusions about the accuracy of the shots of these drunk hunters. Trust me, don't go hunting eastern deer in any eastern state with thick forests on opening day without a bulletproof vest!

[jimjamuser]

Again, clearly this is not the voice of experience but the voice of fantasy. A wolf can do a short burst from 31-37 mph. American Pronghorn Antelope can hit a top speed of 61 mph. Hunters shoot them every year.
Yes for wolves, but they mainly get shot when they are stationary with the !st shot. If there is ANY cover nearby the wolf will disappear before a 2nd shot can happen.
.......Antelope are a lot easier to shoot because their usual habitat is the flat open plains. Their only defense is their keen eyesight, but ANY hunter that can hit them at 200 yards will be successful. Incidentally, I hunted antelope with a bow for 2 weeks. I did not cheat and make a blind at a water hole and wait for them like a terrorist like most hunters do . I actually gave them a sporting chance by stalking them. Stalking in that case meant CRAWLING for 150 yards through thorny cacti to get within 50 yards of them. It was virtually impossible, but it was the greatest hunt that I ever involved myself with. Most of the time the herd spooked. It was hard to wait to they ALL had their heads done and eating. I got lots of cuts and discomfort in those 2 weeks and I never got one with a bow. But, it was great outdoor activity and a lot of meditation thrown in. Most people think that hunters just open the car door and the game is right there to be shot. But, hunting is much MORE than that. It transports you back in time to a period when man's hunting skills determined if he or she ate or starved. Plus hunting helps a person to understand and appreciate the environment.

[jimjamuser]

50% of all firearms produced are semi-automatic. Bolt action, lever action, pump action, breach action

The first semi-automatic rifle was produced in 1885, first semi-automatic pistol was produced in 1892 and the first semi-automatic shotgun was produced in 1902. They've been around for over 125 years. All of a sudden anti-gun people who refuse to be educated on the subject make wild claims rooted in their imagination.

I'd be happy to meet you at the range and give you a free lesson.
In all 2 person interactions, there is an oscillation of time periods when one is the teacher and the other is the student.

[jimjamuser]

While it is true that Australians were forced to sell their now-illegal firearms back to the state in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, the country does permit restricted private firearm sales. Evidence suggests that the number of firearms reported in Australia has in fact increased since 1996.
OK but so too has the population.

[jimjamuser]

50% of all firearms produced are semi-automatic. Bolt action, lever action, pump action, breach action

The first semi-automatic rifle was produced in 1885, first semi-automatic pistol was produced in 1892 and the first semi-automatic shotgun was produced in 1902. They've been around for over 125 years. All of a sudden anti-gun people who refuse to be educated on the subject make wild claims rooted in their imagination.

I'd be happy to meet you at the range and give you a free lesson.
I appreciate the invitation. Unfortunately, I am not of great physical health at the time being. If that improves, I would take you up on that offer and we could also do something really interesting like shoot at quail in the air with bows and special arrows. That beats punching holes in paper......in my opinion.

[jimjamuser]

Mass shootings are increasing because young men are seeking notoriety. It has nothing to do with the choice of firearm. The point is, it takes a mentally ill person to kill innocent people they don't know. A normal person does not do that, regardless how many firearms they own. We can stop mass shootings right now by banning gun ownership by males. Women don't do that.

According to the FBI the average home invasion is 3-5 armed individuals. If you are in a gun fight with bad people what type of weapon is a personal choice. For me, I prefer a semi-automatic pistol. One thing for certain. Nobody who has ever won a gun fight complained of having too much ammunition.

You can be certain of this. Criminals don't care how many laws you make nor how many guns you ban, they will still shoot you.

Armed law abiding citizens use their firearm 2.5 million times each year. It is estimated that between 50-75% of those interactions saved lives.
I would prefer a short-barreled shotgun for home defense. I don't have access to FBI statistics on home invasions, but I would think that it would usually be ONLY 1 or 2 home burglars. Maybe if they were burglarizing Mark Zuckerberg's house or some other 1 % er, then they might take a GANG of 5 co-crooks with them. Most crooks probably don't have 5 friends that they trust. Maybe some gang bangers could team up to do one house, but color me skeptical.

[jimjamuser]

The military chose the 5.56/.223 round to allow troops to carry more rounds into combat. The higher muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second created enough terminal force while maintaining lighter recoil for quicker follow up shots.
I would prefer a short-barreled shotgun for home defense. I don't have access to FBI statistics on home invasions, but I would think that it would usually be ONLY 1 or 2 home burglars. Maybe if they were burglarizing Mark Zuckerberg's house or some other 1 % er, then they might take a GANG of 5 co-crooks with them. Most crooks probably don't have 5 friends that they trust. Maybe some gang bangers could team up to do one house, but color me skeptical.

[jimjamuser]

The military chose the 5.56/.223 round to allow troops to carry more rounds into combat. The higher muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second created enough terminal force while maintaining lighter recoil for quicker follow up shots.
Agreed. That is pretty much what I said.

[jimjamuser]

That is a non-effective plan and would fail from the beginning.

A better plan is to secure our schools in a manner similar to a school in Indiana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This type of retrofit could happen nationwide over the course of summer break. Additionally, states should implement a program like Florida did. The guardian program can be found here: Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program (https://www.fldoe.org/safe-schools/guardian-program.stml)

How about volunteering to protect a school in your area?

Another option would be to arm every adult in the school with a non-lethal option such as the Byrna pepper gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5db0qRMJSfs

Incidentally, over 200 police departments are looking at the Byrna to replace tazers as their non-lethal option.
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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser View Post
Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

I believe you are mistaken, but I am willing to research it. Are you sure you meant to say the military went to a 22 caliber cartridge?
The size of the inside of the barrel for the .223 caliber AR-15 military-style weapon is the same as the 22 caliber RIMFIRE cartridge that is generally used for "plinking" and shooting small pests. The .223 cartridge has room for much more powder and therefore more velocity. The bullet length and construction are different between the two as is the barrel twist and other factors.

[jimjamuser]

Interesting fact. More people are killed each year with hammers and with fists that all rifles combined. What do we do about that?


OK, anyone caught using their arms and fists to kill someone has their arms cut off and incinerated, then make them wear a t-shirt that says arms are meant for hugging.
More people may be killed in TOTAL every year with hammers. But, it is harder to kill 4 or more people at one time with a hammer than with a semi-auto rifle. People can be killed with cars or rocks or even electrocuted on purpose. Hammers and rocks can not be restricted by law, but semi-auto rifles that are preferred by mass murderers COULD BE restricted by law. A simple logical law would be that you must be age 21 or older to purchase a semi-auto rifle.

[jimjamuser]

When we went to Barstow/Ft. Irwin to practice, some rifles had 22 adapters to save on ammunition costs. It wasn’t a caliber used for wartime. Basic training installations and academy programs almost always used 22s for practice.
Yes there are adapters that allow you to shoot a 22 rimfire in a AR-15 style rifle. It is possible to shoot a 30 cal M-1 carbine cartridge in a 30-06 rifle........or even smaller pistol cartridges.

[jimjamuser]

I'm sorry to question you but I just do not see that as being true. Of course if you gave my Mother in Law an AR15, and I had a pump action shotgun there is a CHANCE I could fire more quickly. In the hands of shooters with similar skills I do not see a pump action ever being as fast (and definitely not as accurate) as a semi auto.
You have a right to question that. It was a pretty startling opinion that I have about that. Your left hand on the pump can apply more force and speed than the blowback of the gasses used in many semi-autos like the AK-47. The gases have a long path to travel. Some semi-autos are recoil operated so they would be faster than the gas blowback system. A luger is a recoil reload system using a toggle bolt system. Ever notice how slow the toggle moves? A pump shotgun could certainly reload faster than that system.

[jimjamuser]

We are certainly fortunate that many mass shooters don’t use shotguns. They are much more devastating in certain situations. Imagine if a pump with extenders was used in Uvalde. There would have been a lot more victims than we had for sure.
I agree and have also stated that a short barrel shotgun would be the best home defense system. Also, the shot would be less likely to penetrate walls and injure someone unintentionally.

[Sarah_W]

Australia did NOT disarm its citizens. And I would NOT recommend that for America.

Australia DID melt down its semi-auto rifles which were causing its mass murders to increase. After Australia did that, mass murders went to zero.

That is what I am saying and it is a historic lesson that America should be aware of (most aren't) and seek to emulate. The US has an INCREASING mass murder PROBLEM and the Australian example is a SOLUTION.

This mass murder PROBLEM likely will increase more and could come to TV Land, which has some soft targets like big churches and the squares. At least I have proposed a SOLUTION to this problem. It may not be a perfect solution because it would change the status quo and the hooks in America by the gun lobby. I am not for gun confiscation in America or for taking away the means to prevent government tyranny. I am for sporting rifles that could be used in the RARE case of an American government going crazy ballistic against its citizens. These AR-15-type weapons and Russian Ak-47-type rifles are just OVERKILL for US civilian use and are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. I am saying that there should be a BALANCE between what the NRA wants to see a US citizen and the wanton, INCREASING mass murders of children and adults that we ARE experiencing and that we WILL be experiencing. BALANCE is everything!
As far as Australia and COVID go.......I don't live in Australia, so I am not expert enough on the Australian medical system and the severity of its Covid outbreak to say whether they did the wrong thing or the right thing in THEIR case. I just applaud their SOLUTION to their mass murder problem and I WISH that America could follow their example!

Yes, Australia did in fact disarm their citizens by taking away their arms by decree and force of law. Disarming its citizens to a certain point is disarming nonetheless.

Australias gun law (NFA) went into affect in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre. The US and Australia both define a mass shooting as 5 or more dead or injured. Since 1997, Australia has 17 mass killing events. Your claim of zero is false.

What you wish for is not a solution at all. Removing all semi-automatic rifles will not stop mass killings. Your proposal is to punish law abiding citizens while ignoring those with evil in their heart. Your proposal does not affect the bad guy but adversely affects the good guy. One man with a semi-automatic pistol stopped a mass shooter at the mall in Indiana. When the average response time for law enforcement is 10 minutes, can we estimate how many people would have died that day waiting for the Police? Jonathan Sapirman exited the mens bathroom and began shooting people in the food court. It took 15 seconds for a good citizen with a handgun to stop that threat. Sapirman killed 3 people and injured 2 while firing 24 rounds. When he was killed he had over 100 rounds on him. If Elisha Dicken had not killed Sapirman so quickly we can deduce that with the first magazine there were 5 casualties. He still had four more magazines. There would have likely been 20 more casualties and at the same rate in stead of 3 dead and 2 injured, the total would have been 15 dead and 10 injured. We can safely credit Dicken with saving 12 lives or more.

At this point I have to assume you did not go to any of the links I previously provided including the two videos. The two solutions I have proposed would virtually eliminate school mass shootings.

I agree with you that mass shootings will likely increase. That is because our Federal, State and Local governments have created the conditions. Along with the media, they have created the motive. Notoriety. This is a real world video game and these young men are vying for the high score. To stop mass shootings/killings we have to remove the motive. Their name should not be known. We have to stop glorifying these killings by adding another name to the list of famous killers. The lockdowns forced kids to stay home for nearly two years. What did they do for boredom and inability to be with their peers and to touch their peers?

Perhaps we need copy cat good samaritans? Millions of law abiding responsible gun owning Americans armed and trained to stop the bad guy in 15 seconds.

[Sarah_W]

In all 2 person interactions, there is an oscillation of time periods when one is the teacher and the other is the student.

That sounds reasonable. Let's go to the range so you can teach me something.

[Sarah_W]

More people may be killed in TOTAL every year with hammers. But, it is harder to kill 4 or more people at one time with a hammer than with a semi-auto rifle. People can be killed with cars or rocks or even electrocuted on purpose. Hammers and rocks can not be restricted by law, but semi-auto rifles that are preferred by mass murderers COULD BE restricted by law. A simple logical law would be that you must be age 21 or older to purchase a semi-auto rifle.

Not true, Jim. The weapon of choice for mass murderers is a handgun, not a rifle. That is very easily verified with a little Google search.

Ramos had 77 minutes alone with two classrooms of children. He could have killed just as many by strangling them with his bare hands.

Remove motive and opportunity and so many lives would be spared.

[ThirdOfFive]

Yes for wolves, but they mainly get shot when they are stationary with the !st shot. If there is ANY cover nearby the wolf will disappear before a 2nd shot can happen.
.......Antelope are a lot easier to shoot because their usual habitat is the flat open plains. Their only defense is their keen eyesight, but ANY hunter that can hit them at 200 yards will be successful. Incidentally, I hunted antelope with a bow for 2 weeks. I did not cheat and make a blind at a water hole and wait for them like a terrorist like most hunters do . I actually gave them a sporting chance by stalking them. Stalking in that case meant CRAWLING for 150 yards through thorny cacti to get within 50 yards of them. It was virtually impossible, but it was the greatest hunt that I ever involved myself with. Most of the time the herd spooked. It was hard to wait to they ALL had their heads done and eating. I got lots of cuts and discomfort in those 2 weeks and I never got one with a bow. But, it was great outdoor activity and a lot of meditation thrown in. Most people think that hunters just open the car door and the game is right there to be shot. But, hunting is much MORE than that. It transports you back in time to a period when man's hunting skills determined if he or she ate or starved. Plus hunting helps a person to understand and appreciate the environment.
Good points made.

Dad was a purist when it came to hunting. Early on, my brothers and I were taught three things: 1) Treat ALL guns as if they are loaded at all times, and NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; 2) shooting happens at the END of the hunting. Being a good shot does not make one a good hunter; and 3) the most important shot is the first one; a bunch of following shots usually means that you botched the first one.

They were all points well-taken. My brothers and I grew up knowing woodcraft, and in Northern MN where depending on the direction you might be looking at 10 miles or more of unbroken forest, that knowledge was invaluable. We learned the habits of the game we were hunting, the type of land and cover where they might be found, how they'd act in certain situations, etc.

We also learned to navigate the woods; no GPS in those days. Of course we carried compasses but we learned to tell direction without a compass as well. I used to play a game with myself where I'd pick a known point in my mind, then walk 2-3 miles through unbroken woodland (much of it muskeg swamp) without using a compass, and see how close I could get to it. I was rarely more than 100 yards distant from it when I came out.

I also did some archery hunting (not too successfully, but...). One of my goals is to hunt feral pigs down here, either with a bow or rifle. Haven't done it yet, but...

[Daxdog]

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.

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

[Taltarzac725]

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

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

[billethkid]

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

100% agree.

Similar to a lawyer argument...either use, abuse or hide behind the law....which ever is convenient to make a point or support a given agenda.

[jimjamuser]

Yes, Australia did in fact disarm their citizens by taking away their arms by decree and force of law. Disarming its citizens to a certain point is disarming nonetheless.

Australias gun law (NFA) went into affect in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre. The US and Australia both define a mass shooting as 5 or more dead or injured. Since 1997, Australia has 17 mass killing events. Your claim of zero is false.

What you wish for is not a solution at all. Removing all semi-automatic rifles will not stop mass killings. Your proposal is to punish law abiding citizens while ignoring those with evil in their heart. Your proposal does not affect the bad guy but adversely affects the good guy. One man with a semi-automatic pistol stopped a mass shooter at the mall in Indiana. When the average response time for law enforcement is 10 minutes, can we estimate how many people would have died that day waiting for the Police? Jonathan Sapirman exited the mens bathroom and began shooting people in the food court. It took 15 seconds for a good citizen with a handgun to stop that threat. Sapirman killed 3 people and injured 2 while firing 24 rounds. When he was killed he had over 100 rounds on him. If Elisha Dicken had not killed Sapirman so quickly we can deduce that with the first magazine there were 5 casualties. He still had four more magazines. There would have likely been 20 more casualties and at the same rate in stead of 3 dead and 2 injured, the total would have been 15 dead and 10 injured. We can safely credit Dicken with saving 12 lives or more.

At this point I have to assume you did not go to any of the links I previously provided including the two videos. The two solutions I have proposed would virtually eliminate school mass shootings.

I agree with you that mass shootings will likely increase. That is because our Federal, State and Local governments have created the conditions. Along with the media, they have created the motive. Notoriety. This is a real world video game and these young men are vying for the high score. To stop mass shootings/killings we have to remove the motive. Their name should not be known. We have to stop glorifying these killings by adding another name to the list of famous killers. The lockdowns forced kids to stay home for nearly two years. What did they do for boredom and inability to be with their peers and to touch their peers?

Perhaps we need copy cat good samaritans? Millions of law abiding responsible gun owning Americans armed and trained to stop the bad guy in 15 seconds.
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.

[Taltarzac725]

100% agree.

Similar to a lawyer argument...either use, abuse or hide behind the law....which ever is convenient to make a point or support a given agenda.

What a "lawyerly" response.

[jimjamuser]

Yes, Australia did in fact disarm their citizens by taking away their arms by decree and force of law. Disarming its citizens to a certain point is disarming nonetheless.

Australias gun law (NFA) went into affect in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre. The US and Australia both define a mass shooting as 5 or more dead or injured. Since 1997, Australia has 17 mass killing events. Your claim of zero is false.

What you wish for is not a solution at all. Removing all semi-automatic rifles will not stop mass killings. Your proposal is to punish law abiding citizens while ignoring those with evil in their heart. Your proposal does not affect the bad guy but adversely affects the good guy. One man with a semi-automatic pistol stopped a mass shooter at the mall in Indiana. When the average response time for law enforcement is 10 minutes, can we estimate how many people would have died that day waiting for the Police? Jonathan Sapirman exited the mens bathroom and began shooting people in the food court. It took 15 seconds for a good citizen with a handgun to stop that threat. Sapirman killed 3 people and injured 2 while firing 24 rounds. When he was killed he had over 100 rounds on him. If Elisha Dicken had not killed Sapirman so quickly we can deduce that with the first magazine there were 5 casualties. He still had four more magazines. There would have likely been 20 more casualties and at the same rate in stead of 3 dead and 2 injured, the total would have been 15 dead and 10 injured. We can safely credit Dicken with saving 12 lives or more.

At this point I have to assume you did not go to any of the links I previously provided including the two videos. The two solutions I have proposed would virtually eliminate school mass shootings.

I agree with you that mass shootings will likely increase. That is because our Federal, State and Local governments have created the conditions. Along with the media, they have created the motive. Notoriety. This is a real world video game and these young men are vying for the high score. To stop mass shootings/killings we have to remove the motive. Their name should not be known. We have to stop glorifying these killings by adding another name to the list of famous killers. The lockdowns forced kids to stay home for nearly two years. What did they do for boredom and inability to be with their peers and to touch their peers?

Perhaps we need copy cat good samaritans? Millions of law abiding responsible gun owning Americans armed and trained to stop the bad guy in 15 seconds.
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.

[affald]

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

Exactly.

[jimjamuser]

Good points made.

Dad was a purist when it came to hunting. Early on, my brothers and I were taught three things: 1) Treat ALL guns as if they are loaded at all times, and NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; 2) shooting happens at the END of the hunting. Being a good shot does not make one a good hunter; and 3) the most important shot is the first one; a bunch of following shots usually means that you botched the first one.

They were all points well-taken. My brothers and I grew up knowing woodcraft, and in Northern MN where depending on the direction you might be looking at 10 miles or more of unbroken forest, that knowledge was invaluable. We learned the habits of the game we were hunting, the type of land and cover where they might be found, how they'd act in certain situations, etc.

We also learned to navigate the woods; no GPS in those days. Of course we carried compasses but we learned to tell direction without a compass as well. I used to play a game with myself where I'd pick a known point in my mind, then walk 2-3 miles through unbroken woodland (much of it muskeg swamp) without using a compass, and see how close I could get to it. I was rarely more than 100 yards distant from it when I came out.

I also did some archery hunting (not too successfully, but...). One of my goals is to hunt feral pigs down here, either with a bow or rifle. Haven't done it yet, but...
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.

[justjim]

That still looks like the National Guard to me as a "well regulated" militia and not some group of Villagers, for instance, interested in guns.

Effect of the NRA (National Rifle Association) As a Citizens Special Interest Group Concerned With the Criminal Justice System | Office of Justice Programs (https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/effect-nra-national-rifle-association-citizens-special-interest)

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903)

The Supreme Court took a wrong turn mainly because of the intense lobbying by a changed NRA.

Tal (0P). You make a good point. The National Guard is as much the people today as the Militia was the people in the 1700’s. The big difference is the so called “fire power” of the individual guns (weapons) that people can now (because of technology) possess.