[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

And 14 virgins feeding you grapes - LOL!

[Topspinmo]

Rifles that was assault weapon in 1870s


Winchester Model 1892 - Wikipedia

Henry rifle - Wikipedia

The media and Hollywood sensational for there agenda.

Two Hollywood series comes to mind that sensationalized the repeating rifle

The Rifleman and wanted dead or alive. Who used the rifles to mow down the bad guys. Then, there the movie 3000 miles from Graceland and dozens more. All this sensationalized mass killing that pollute undeveloped adolescent mines. Then add the hundreds Violent video games and you have the prefect mind of mass shooter IMO.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

The wag was Niccolo Machiavelli.

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

well they did not have to rely on bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs and peashooters. They had cannon, mortar and howitzers. Not only was it lethal, it was brutal.

get to know the brutal artillery of the revolutionary war | the drive

naval battles occurred on lake george ny. Their remains are underwater for all to view

[A-2-56]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

I think one can make a better argument that what was the concern was a powerful central government authority, whey were still rebels with a decided preference for local government, states rights were preeminent right up to the civil war, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I think at that point they were more concerned with having the "new boss same as the old boss"

[La lamy]

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

[Joe C.]

Originally Posted by La lamy

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

No, No, No. If you know and understand firearms, you would change your opinion. However we do have a Constitution, and are obligated to abide by it.
Those who choose to commit "mass murder", don't care about the law.
And BTW, millions of us own at least one semi-automatic, and we don't go around killing people.

[Will63]

So is the free press the 1st amendment refers to. No longer newspapers or word of mouth but the 1st amendment still applies.

[bowlingal]

definitely no assault rifles

[msirianni]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

You missed lawyers, lots and lots of lawyers down there.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

The wag was Niccolo Machiavelli.

Grazie molto!

[Blackbird45]

I do have a question. If the 2nd amendment is interpreted as many people claim why is there a restriction on automatic firearms or tanks or anything? If you can afford it, you can buy it.

[NoMo50]

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by La lamy

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.