Agreed. Can everyone say.......term limits?

I am not perfectly clear on the numbers, but I know for sure that enacting a NEW Amendment is a high (near impossible today) hurdle to get over. It needs something like 67 Senators to approve it. It would be hard to get 67 Senators to agree that the earth is round EVEN.

I gave my opinion earlier about hardening schools. Some schools might be hardened and it would be expensive and might require tax increases, which are like pulling teeth. Not all schools will be hardened. And neither can the US harden ALL high school football games, malls, churches, concerts, and other soft targets. That solution is SO weak that it is similar to "just not change anything because some people hate change" and will have little effect.

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

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

Well, I do know a few things about firearms and a very SIMPLE KNOWN fact is that the pellets from a shotgun do NOT, definitely NOT, BEGIN spreading out at the end of the barrel. That is because from about 1960 on most, if not all, shotgun shells are made with the pellets enclosed in a PLASTIC cup. This was designed to give any given shotgun a LONGER range - duck and pheasant hunters LOVED the improvement.

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

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

****

To William Stephens Smith
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to keep things shorter.

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

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

So were the people

The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in the world and the framework of the freest nation in the world. it should be very difficult to amend it. Go here to understand the process: Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the last sentence.

John Locke - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

When did that happen and what is an assault weapon?

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

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

Annie Oakley and the Marlin 1891 (39A).
 

Marlin Model Golden 39A - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I have never started a thread and I never even read about how to do it - because normally I only wake up early at 5 AM if my house is on fire, to go to the bathroom, to have a heart attack, or to watch the beginning of WW3. There should have been multiple threads already this year because of the serious nature of the problem, but there haven't been any that I remember (someone may correct me if I missed one). Mass murders are around 360 year to date, which is a record. And last year was also a record. They are increasing and the public all across the US want a SOLUTION. A councilman in Uvalde was on TV saying that, at minimum, the Governor or at the Federal level should raise the age for purchase of AR-15 style weapons to 21. The Texas governor CLAIMED? that the sole answer was to somehow nebulously improve mental health (a concept ripped out of the pages of NRA dogma). Which basically translates to ........"do nothing and don't rock the boat".

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

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

I could be wrong about this. But, years ago I remember reading that much of the US Constitution was taken from a Constitution of one of the Native American tribes living in the Northeast.....maybe the Algonquin Tribe? I don't know this for a fact, I am just throwing the ball to the experts here.

Well, it is NOT a big problem in most 1st world countries, only the US. So, we have a serious modern problem that is getting WORSE !

And that problem is likely to get worse.

I agree that it would be incredibly terrible if the US citizens were disarmed. We all agree on that. I am talking about a SOLUTION to the increasing shootings like in Uvalde. US citizens of good faith should be able to come to a compromise situation that retains the right to bear arms (which I agree with) and the rights of citizens NOT to be gunned down like rodents as they conduct their daily lives. Going to bolt-action as Australia and other countries have done does NOT constitute disarming citizens - it just means slowing down the demented murderers so that Police or school Officers or civilians even have the time to thwart the attack. It gives potential innocent victims, both children and adults, time to run away and SURVIVE. Everyone wants to survive.

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

Yes, individual rifles would be useless against heavy armored Army equipment. But I can imagine more of a guerrilla conflict against a tyrannical government - more like the movie "Red Dawn".

With all due respect that is a speeches argument , the ability of the governed to oppose the government is taken away long before the use of heavy weapons in armed military assault on the civilian population would occur as demonstrated in countries listed in other posts. History seems to demonstrate that unarming of the population is the first step down the road to an oppressive government. It's within living history a time when the availability of semi automatic military weapons were easily obtainable and "mass shootings" were just about unheard of. would this not strongly suggest that the problem is more "sociological" than availability of weapons?
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think he was talking about a taxation issue but the logic hold here as well

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

duplicate

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice

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

Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

double post, sorry

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