OH? Do you have some quotes from the Founders that support what your opinion?

The original subject of this thread was what our Founding Fathers considered to be arms.

I understand that a lot of folks wish to talk about mass killings. So, I've started another thread where we can have an honest conversation about mass murder events.

How many 50cal rifles have been used for mass shootings in America? My brother and my son-inlaw use a 58cal muzzle loader for hunting deer.

Can you tell me which Walmart sells guns and ammo magazines around here? I have been looking for a good deal on rifle and pistol supplies and have only found Rural King to have decent deals.

If America is too harsh and violent and Australia is so great for some.....sounds like it is time to migrate. Personally, I feel safe here. I totally support the 2nd Amend and find it to be a useful tool for American citizens safety. You cannot depend on a very small law enforcement presence and most of the time they can't do anything until a crime has already been committed. You can't get rid of evil by taking defense away from honest, good citizens. Just because some on here are scared of the big bang guns, that doesn't mean that everyone else should coddle their fear. The 2nd Amend allows us to have firearms, period. There is nothing in it detailing what type are allowed. I do not care what some "think" or "feel" is logical to them as for what can or cannot be owned by good American citizens.

With all due respect, weapons "for home defense, hunting, and legitimate shooting of targets." were a given at the time our nation came into being. A gun was a survival tool as much as hoes, spades, and axes were survival tools. It would have made as much (or as little) sense for the founders to amend the Constitution so that the right to own an ax was enshrined as a constitutional right.

Every right in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people from government overreach. It is sophism on steroids to try to argue that the Second Amendment is any different.

The gun magazines that I talked about in my 3rd paragraph are gun magazines devoted to the topic of guns (the paper kind that you read), not the steel kind that hold cartridge rounds. Walmart does have those in their reading magazine area.

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic

Worth a look.

I enjoy reading The Atlantic. Well-written articles always. I don't agree with all of them, but if I did I wouldn't bother reading it. I don't need an echo.

I enjoy reading The Atlantic. Well-written articles always. I don't agree with all of them, but if I did I wouldn't bother reading it. I don't need an echo.

IN essence, though, we're arguing something that has already been decided. Whatever the wishes of part of the population, the other part is already very well-armed, and ready to defend their freedom and way of life, should it ever come to that. And nothing we're arguing about here, or anywhere, will change that.

Law and order would change that. Basically overthrowing the government is sedition. It is against the law.

18 U.S. Code SS 2384 - Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

If law and order prevailed in this country, defending freedoms through force would not even be considered.

And yet, that is EXACTLY what was intended by the Second Amendment. At the time there was no standing army. So there was no army gear. No army uniforms, no army weapons, no army vehicles or stables for mounted soldiers. People joined to defend their country using their own weapons. 2A guaranteed they had the right to do so.

May I clarify? The first US military was established by congress in Sept 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in December of 1791. You can Google it if you wish, but I taught Social Studies for many years in addition to many other hats and I can tell you this for certain.

Good to know.

I stand corrected. The military was officially established in 1789. And then the government said, in 1791, "hey all you soldiers in this rag-tag army with no actual Armory to house artillery, arms, munitions, uniforms - let's make this easier for ya. Instead of unlawfully carrying them from home to your posts (since carrying a firearm was actually ILLEGAL in public in many places throughout the US at the time), you have federal permission to do so." (though they said it more eloquently, using legal terminology of the time, and so on)

Atlantic Myth #1: Nobody believes the Constitution gives the right to threaten government.

The Internet and television were not covered by the First Amendment then?

I am not someone that thinks we should use the US Constitution as the Founding Fathers meant their ideas to apply to society in 1789 and shortly afterwards.

Society and laws develop. As does the lethality of "arms". People should deal with the 2nd Amendment as it applies to events in 2022 not those in the 1790s.

Society and laws develop. Ours are becoming more lethal.. I'm not about to give up my rights nor ability to defend myself as criminal penalties lessen and criminal behavior becomes more common.

And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE.

The AR-15 is used for home defense, hunting and target practice.

I hear people call the AR a weapon of war and that is patently false.

The AR may look like an M16 but does not perform like the M16, a weapon of war. Our military issues the M16 which is a select fire rifle meaning there is a switch where the soldier can switch to "Auto" (hold the trigger and it keeps firing until the mag is empty), or switch to "Burst" (hold the trigger and it gives a 3 shot burst) or switch to "Semi" (one shot per trigger pull). Our military has NEVER issued the AR to our soldiers. They would die in battle carrying an AR.

The AR has one mode of fire, which is Semi. One shot per trigger pull. I own a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. It shoots the same round, at the same rate of fire with the same magazine as an AR. But, because it doesn't look like an M16 and nobody is concerned by it.

An Opal GT may look like a Corvette, but it will not perform like a Corvette. You can enter the Lemans with a Corvette and win. Enter the Lemans with an Opal GT and you will be dead last or not finish.


Home Defense

Many people choose the AR for home defense. We saw it used successfully during Hurricane Katrina when looting was a problem. People defend their home.

Target practice

The most common rifle I see at the range is the AR, by a wide margin. The AR is like the Harley Davidson, you can customize it to your hearts content. It is fairly light due to the materials used to construct the chassis (wood is heavy). It is easy to shoot and has low recoil.

Sporting Rifle

Three Gun Competition is a very popular sporting event where competitors shoot a rifle, shotgun and handgun as they move through the stages. The AR is the most popular rifle used in this competition.

Steel Challenge is a very popular sporting event where competitors move through eight stages with five targets each at varying distances and configurations. There are several classes a shooter can choose including Pistol Caliber Carbine. For example, I compete in Steel Challenge and choose to shoot in two classes, 1) Factory handgun and 2) PCC, pistol caliber carbine. I own a Kel Tec SUB2000 (made in Florida). It uses 9mm ammunition in a Glock magazine. A pistol ammunition in a pistol magazine.

Incidentally, my Kel Tec is on the list of rifles that H.R. 1808 seeks to ban.

Hunting

The AR is one of the most popular hunting rifles. They are lightweight, easier to carry through the woods than a bolt action rifle, accurate and versatile. Being a modular rifle they can be configured to hunt different game by changing the barrel, bolt carrier group, and magazine.

An avid hunter might choose the following calibers utilized in the same chassis:

.223: Ideal for hunting smaller game like coyotes, rabbits, foxes and varmints.

.300 Blackout: Excellent for hunting animals like feral hogs, varmints and deer.

.308: Powerful rounds you can use to hunt moose, elk, black bears, hogs and deer.

6.5 Grendel: Rounds that produce low recoil — perfect for hunting deer-sized animals.

As a very experienced shooter it is my opinion that a gun is only as good as the shooter on the trigger. I can hand an AR to a novice shooter, show them how to use it, and pick a target from 100 to 400 yards. I will beat them with a handgun.

A "military style" weapon is no more a weapon of war than putting a uniform on Mr. Whipple and calling him a Navy Seal.

The House just passed a law banning AR-15's and other "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. They ARE actually attempting to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which hopefully will be shut down by the Supreme Court. Yes, they really ARE "trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice."

The most evident problem today is that those that fear firearms do not know a lick about them and insist that anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is a dangerous assault weapon. If you allow them to pervert the term "assault weapon" in their ignorance, then they will take away anything that is an firearm and eventually, any knife that isn't plastic. Anything that presents a threat to someone else will be labeled "assault weapon." So, instead of punishing the evil doers, they will be punishing the honest, law abiding citizen. So much for those that insist that no one is attempting to take away your guns. We are now seeing an attempt to create millions of criminals by attempting to disarm decent citizens. Do not attempt to tell me that having bolt action rifles or revolvers is "OK." It's only OK with those that do not like, or those that fear firearms. This is becoming a country where laws are created to protect the criminal and punish those that wish to protect their property, family and themselves. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution was meant to protect the criminal over the decent, honest citizen.

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

It is a ban and not confiscating them from people who already own them.

And there was a gun law for 10 years. Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

As to the Supreme Court who knows what they will do? They have become a political body and not a check on bad laws. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Your political opinion. Who determines what is a "bad law?" You? I thought that was the function of the Supreme Court, and whether we agree with their opinion or not, that is their job. And that is my opinion.

Yes there was a law banning the sale of "assault weapons." Unfortunately, it has not been proved to have lowered gun related murders in the country. And it has not been proved to have lowered the mass murders in this country.
I still say that hardening the physical security will lower/eliminate mass murders by ANY type of weapon, rather than just supposed "assault weapons." You don't protect the hens from the fox by leaving the chicken coop doors open. If you eliminate the fox, you still have other predators.

I would say that the majority of law professors in the US would be able to give a very good assessment as to what is a good or bad law.

And yet, those law professors fit the old saying of "those that can't, teach." We are still speaking of "opinions" and we all know without violating the rules here, that those that you speak of are biased in "most" cases with their slant in this case.
Supreme Court justices are appointed to vote on the Constitutionality of laws. That is their sole responsibility. Yes, their opinions are influenced by their individual biases. The only way to circumvent such flaws would be to turn over all our decisions to a computer that would judge what is lawful. I wonder if the computer would be biased by the programmer.

I am NOT saying that it is impossible, but I am having trouble visualizing someone using a "NORMAL", average handgun like a revolver with a 4-inch barrel or an Army 9mm being able to hit something the size of (say) a basketball at 400 years on the 1st shot. That would be impressive, to say the least. If I remember correctly there is a single-shot Remington X-19 (I could be wrong about the model) that is classified as a pistol used for shooting varmints. It is like a short rifle with a pistol grip and the shoulder stock cut off. It is often used with a scope. A basketball might NOT be safe at 400 yards with such a pistol. But, an ordinary pistol with iron sights ????? The trajectory drop and wind grabbing the wide short bullet would make it difficult to hit a basketball at 400 yards - even with 20 / 20 vision.

My ordinary 9mm pistol is a standard Beretta 92FS issued to the military from 1986 - 2020 and used by many civilians. The round will drop 1.97 feet at 200 yards, 6.29 feet at 300 yards and 13.175 feet at 400 yards.

If you review what I said in the previous post, I will give the AR to a novice shooter and I will use my 9mm pistol and wager I can hit at 100, 200, 300, 400 yards before the novice shooter. Simple rules, you have to hit the target before going to the next distance. You've stated you're not a novice shooter but I'll make the same wager. Loser buys lunch. I'll provide the rifle and ammo (50 rounds max) and use less than one mag on my pistol. Are you up for it?

I would agree if you changed "very good assessment " to "very biased assessment ".

Well then, you would have no problem restricting the possession of AR-15s to HOME defense, hunting, target practice, and sport shooting. Possession of an AR-15 other than the trunk of your vehicle or parking area of the above activities would be illegal.

That means you can't carry one to a protest, a demonstration, you can't carry one in to a supermarket, or restaurant (unless it's on the property of the shooting range, like a snack bar). Of course you can carry it from the store you bought it at, to the trunk of your car, where it stays locked and unavailable to you until you get out of the car (at the shooting range, hunting property, sport range, or your own home).

That's a reasonable solution to me, glad you provided the idea.

Good ideas.

Nice leap. Perhaps you missed the post I was responding to. A little context for you: "And who is trying to take away guns used for home defense, hunting and target practice? NO ONE."

I have a concealed carry permit. Therefore, if I want to put an AR in a gun case, for example, it is concealed. My Kel Tec PCC folds in half and fits in a back pack. Also, concealed.

No, I would not restrict the possession or use of an AR for any legal purpose.

One more law like this would not have stopped ANY of the mass casualty events.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If there are stronger punishments and better defined lines that constitute a violation of the law, then SOME criminals might consider some other means of carrying out their crime.

As it stands now, any idiot with a few hundred bucks can buy a gun and shoot their way to fame and fortune.

If the idiot learned that getting caught would mean an extra 5 years mandatory imprisonment simply because he had a weapon he wasn't allowed to have, on TOP of whatever other crime he committed with that weapon - maybe he'd - I dunno. Use a less lethal method. Or end up in jail for a minimum of 5 years instead of being let off because he was a) white, b) had a good lawyer, and c) said he was sorry.

Pipe dreams are moot when reality sets in. You can make all the laws you wish, but enforcing them becomes the problem in this country.
This is a thread regarding the 2nd Amendment, no?

Correct. It is a thread regarding the 2nd Amendment and in particular what the Framers meant by "arms". A Constitution topic.

Perhaps we should start a thread on gun crimes. Not a Constitution topic. That seemed to work fairly well to isolate Mass Murders from this thread. Not a Constitution topic. :smiley:

13 feet at 40 yards is a lot of drop and wind drift could happen at 400 yards. As far as a personal competition is concerned, maybe about 5 to 10 years ago I could have done that. But, physically I don't have it anymore, and my eye prescription keeps going south on me lately. Sorry.

Funny, the way I have read it is that the laws of Australia, and all other 1st world countries (except for the US) have actually stopped many mass murder events in their countries. The US is, BY FAR. at the top of the class for gun violence. We are number 1 thanks to our patriotic gun makers. And the 2nd Amendment being loosely worded may have contributed to that outcome. People can conjure up patriotic emotions speaking about the 2nd Amendment. But, are those emotions displaced if they contribute to situations like the Uvalde child slaughter?