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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

amen, brother!!!

Suitable
 

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.

Guns
 

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?

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.

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

“Pie in the Sky”
 

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.

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/...-the-founders/

This goes into it.

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.”

. 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

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.

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.

Militia
 

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.

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.

Can Civilians Own Grenades? | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com

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.

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.

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

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.

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

That is honest opinion.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Boxers or briefs might be the first consideration. :)

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

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

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

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?

no politics on here according to the rules.