[Reiver]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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!

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?

[Lindsyburnsy]

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

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

“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.

[Taltarzac725]

Marlin Model Golden 39A - Wikipedia

Annie Oakley involvement
On March 10, 1893 Annie Oakley used a Model 1891 to put 25 shots through one jagged hole in 27 seconds at a distance of 36 feet (12 yds or 11 m) using 22 short cartridges. On the same day she also produced another jagged one-hole group through the center of an Ace of Hearts playing card, while shooting off-hand.[5] Marlin has since made two "special runs" of Annie Oakley commemorative 39A rifles to honor Oakley's achievements and fame while using their brand. The first consisted of 500 39A rifles in 1998 which were offered to the general public with another 100 offered only to their employees. In 2000 another run of the special AO guns was made for Davidson's Gallery of Guns again offered to the general public.

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

"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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Reiver

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, 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 !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

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

And that problem is likely to get worse.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

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".

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

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

[Byte1]

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.

[Byte1]

duplicate