[Byte1]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, but it's in writing; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" It doesn't matter the intent of those persons owning firearms. The laws says that right "shall not be infringed." I won't print out the definition of "infringed" because everyone here should understand that.
By the way, according to the CDC, an average (reported) of a million citizens are saved by guns every year. That is a conservative number, which means that there are probably a lot more than reported.
Want to protect children or just announce a fear of guns? Protect children by hardening physical security at the schools. A tall fence with a gate and gate guard will deter 99.9% of school mass murders. Making schools soft targets makes it easy for lazy criminals to exploit. That's what happens in theaters also. That bad guy hates the idea of having to worry about being stopped when he has an agenda.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, but it's in writing; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" It doesn't matter the intent of those persons owning firearms. The laws says that right "shall not be infringed." I won't print out the definition of "infringed" because everyone here should understand that.
By the way, according to the CDC, an average (reported) of a million citizens are saved by guns every year. That is a conservative number, which means that there are probably a lot more than reported.
Want to protect children or just announce a fear of guns? Protect children by hardening physical security at the schools. A tall fence with a gate and gate guard will deter 99.9% of school mass murders. Making schools soft targets makes it easy for lazy criminals to exploit. That's what happens in theaters also. That bad guy hates the idea of having to worry about being stopped when he has an agenda.

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Other than revolvers and some shotguns, aren't the vast majority of guns semi auto?

You could interpret it as that. Most firearms, other than single-shot ones where you have to physically eject the spent cartridge and load another one by hand, will fire rapidly, the advantage of the semi-auto being that you can fire the rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. A double-action revolver for example will also fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, the limiting factor being that your finger supplies the energy to rotate the cylinder and cycle the hammer, so "as fast as you can pull the trigger" is somewhat slower than with a semi-auto pistol.

But even a lever-action rifle can be fired rapidly. Back in the day my uncle Vic, who hunted deer with a 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, had the reputation of being able to fire off the seventh round before the first one got to the target. May have been slightly exaggerated, but he WAS fast. Not accurate, but fast.

[moe1212]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

the reason is to fend off tyranny / the government, if they decide to take over. To have the ability to defend against the "standing army" I don't think flint locks or sabers would have much of a chance. The amendment is not for sport shooters / hunters or the such

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

Did I say anything about justifying children dying every year? Is getting rid of guns going to stop children from dying every year? I think that the idea of children dying by being shot in schools is just an excuse for those that wish to impel their personal fears and beliefs on others. If they really cared about children they would not be so cavalier about ignoring the majority of citizens rights. If they really cared about the children's safety, they would protect them at the schools instead of attempting to change the masses to their will. Like I said before, harden the physical security and get over the idea of being able to stop mental illness. Murders have been committed since the beginning of mankind and it will never stop. Best way to stop murderers is to put them down when they commit the crime. The best way to protect is physical security. The best way to deter is to put fear into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. If someone wishes to break into my home to steal, they will NOT do so if they know I am home and armed. Why do they prefer females over males when they carjack? Because they fear strength in any form. They are cowards by nature and prey on the weak.
Like I said before, when you can show me where more folks are killed by guns than saved by guns, we can have an honest discussion on the subject of firearms.

[Freeda]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

I would assume that our founding fathers also knew that technology would continue to improve/change in the future, as to what would be considered "arms"; yet they did not restrict that term to only "arms" that existed at the time.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

For almost 200 years constitutional experts disagreed with your interpretation of that comma. But what do I know. I don't have a degree is olde English or constitutional law.

And does that comma justify all the children that die every year?

I firmly believe this heroic young man's selfless act to protect others would warm the hearts of the founding fathers.

Police applaud bystander who killed Indiana mall shooter

I am more concerned about the huge number of children killed by fentanyl and other illicit drugs, drunken drivers, and armed and unarmed thugs in their neighborhoods than these copy cat school shooting committed by a few crazies. Of course schools should be secured. That is a no brainer.

The penalty should severe enough to deter the crime. The death penalty should be used when appropriate . I cannot understand why this murderer is still alive.

Supreme Court reimposes death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber : NPR

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

Except, we don't have a King. We don't need to conscript private citizens to fight our wars from us anymore, we have an actual military now, and they have their own budget and their own weapons.

[Duke-SRT]

We protect our president with guns
We protect our politicians with guns
We protect our money (banks) with guns
We protect our celebrities with guns
We protect or children with a sign that says “this is a no gun zone”.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Let me know how your AR-15 does when the M1Abrams shows up.

Do the same thing the Viet Minn, Viet Cong and the Mujahideen did against their enemies. The Viet Cong endured attacks from tanks, infantry, artillery, attach helicopters and B52 strikes and kept coming back for more. Cost us what, 50,000 plus lives?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Do the same thing the Viet Minn, Viet Cong and the Mujahideen did against their enemies. The Viet Cong endured attacks from tanks, infantry, artillery, attach helicopters and B52 strikes and kept coming back for more. Cost us what, 50,000 plus lives?

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

[Joe C.]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

When you need a fast, second shot. It's important if you are hunting and one shot doesn't do it...... or if you missed on your first shot, and still have an opportunity.

How about this : Three home invaders break into your house while you are sleeping. You awake to the sound of the front door crashing in. You get out of bed to see what's happening.. Upon seeing the home invaders, you point to your watch and say "Hey, it's time to leave". Or do you take your semi-automatic and drop them 1,2,3.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Except, we don't have a King. We don't need to conscript private citizens to fight our wars from us anymore, we have an actual military now, and they have their own budget and their own weapons.

With the current political climate we may have a king sooner than later.

Since 1980, every male US citizen between 18 and 25 has been required to register for the draft. That it has not been invoked does not negate that fact that it *could* be invoked at the demand of the "king"

The standing army, with the ability to conscript private citizens is, to some, the reason we need the 2nd amendment.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

And we have large urban areas where all kinds of evil people can and do hide.

[Jeffery M]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

During the timeof the Founding Father's private individuals could, own cannon, individually and as part of mercantile partnerships, for use on their ships, for protection against pirates and for use as privateers.