Originally Posted by NoMo50 (Post 2117562)

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?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117354)

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.

Originally Posted by Speedie (Post 2117555)

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

Originally Posted by A-2-56 (Post 2117477)

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.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2117590)

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.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Joe C. (Post 2117488)

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.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2117521)

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.

Originally Posted by La lamy (Post 2117485)

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.

Originally Posted by jebartle (Post 2117612)

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

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2117614)

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?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117615)

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

Originally Posted by NoMo50 (Post 2117511)

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.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117615)

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

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2117622)

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.

Originally Posted by NoMo50 (Post 2117511)

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.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2117590)

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.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117616)

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

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2117314)

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

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

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2117639)

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

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2117639)

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

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117640)

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

Originally Posted by jebartle (Post 2117612)

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

Originally Posted by keepsake (Post 2117356)

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

Originally Posted by Reiver (Post 2117632)

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

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

Originally Posted by midiwiz (Post 2117541)

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

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117640)

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

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2117648)

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

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2117614)

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?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117549)

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

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117553)

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?

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2117678)

"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.

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2117673)

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

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117371)

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...

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117683)

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?