[tophcfa]

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

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.

. 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.

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I view the National Guard as what the Founding Fathers meant as to a well regulated militia.

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.”

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-founders/

This goes into it.

. 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

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Reiver

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.”

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.

[Normal]

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.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Normal

arms in this day and age are a lot less damaging (AR 15s are pop guns in comparison).

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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.

[Taltarzac725]

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Can Civilians Own Grenades? | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com

That 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.

[jebartle]

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

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

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.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jebartle

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

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

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.

That is honest opinion.