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.

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

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

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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

No, I didn’t pose the answer.

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.

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.

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

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.

This is worth a look. The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms - FindLaw

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

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

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

Constitution
 

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.

Arms
 

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

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.

Yes, arms were different back then
 

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?

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.

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?

Weapons
 

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".

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.

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)

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

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

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.

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.

“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.

Remember Wisdom is more precious than ever than pearls or gold.
 

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 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.

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.

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.

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.