[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Actually, the 2nd Amendment said that STATE militiamen were entitled to "bear" their arms. Their arms were black powder muskets that were single shot and required a long time to reload and malfunctioned often. They had an accuracy range of about 50 meters. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment said that "individuals" should "bear arms". That is just the NRA's convenient interpretation.
..........Today's arms shoot with each trigger pull for a possible rate of fire of 45 shots per minute with little recoil and accuracy out to about 500 meters.
............The 2nd Amendment was purposely written ambiguously for its long-ago time. It did NOT come down from GOD and written in stone, like MANY WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE.

Wrong and wrong. That's NOT what the 2nd amendment states or means. At the time it was written, we did not have a standing army. "Militias" were raised when a call went out for volunteers, many of whom were just farmers and frontiersman. That "militia" did not have an arsenal to hand out guns, the volunteers had to bring their own. Therefore, INDIVIDUALS were guaranteed the right to "bear arms", not just "state militiamen". In 1787, unless you were a city dweller, a gun was a necessity---hunting for food, protection against whomever, etc. Even 100 years later in the "wild west", the 2 most heinous crimes (punishable by hanging) were horse theft and gun theft, because without either you had a very short life expectancy. As Obi Wan Kenobi siad to Anikan Skywalker in Star Wars episode 2 after retrieving his light saber---"This weapon is your life"

Full disclosure----I've never even held a gun in my hand.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Wrong and wrong. That's NOT what the 2nd amendment states or means. At the time it was written, we did not have a standing army. "Militias" were raised when a call went out for volunteers, many of whom were just farmers and frontiersman. That "militia" did not have an arsenal to hand out guns, the volunteers had to bring their own. Therefore, INDIVIDUALS were guaranteed the right to "bear arms", not just "state militiamen". In 1787, unless you were a city dweller, a gun was a necessity---hunting for food, protection against whomever, etc. Even 100 years later in the "wild west", the 2 most heinous crimes (punishable by hanging) were horse theft and gun theft, because without either you had a very short life expectancy. As Obi Wan Kenobi siad to Anikan Skywalker in Star Wars episode 2 after retrieving his light saber---"This weapon is your life"

Full disclosure----I've never even held a gun in my hand.

Good points.

Another point that could be made, in relation to the ones in this post, regards the actual weapons themselves. People sometimes state that the Second Amendment was written to reflect the arms of the time, muzzle-loading muskets, shotguns, the ubiquitous "Brown Bess" British musket which was used by the British (and some of the opposing colonists as well). True enough. But what ISN'T mentioned is the fact that a lot of the colonists used the Pennsylvania Rifle, which was a far superior weapon to the Brown Bess. The Bess was accurate to maybe 50 yards. After that it was anyone's guess as to where the ball was going. The Pennsylvania Rifle, on the other hand, was accurate to several hundreds of yards beyond that.

The point is that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the American colonists possessed a weapon that was in many ways SUPERIOR to the best the British armies had.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

One of the biggest problems, in my opinion, is that it seems most of the time, when a crime is committed with a gun, the crime (usually in reduced form) is consequated but the criminal act of using a gun in the commission of the crime(s) is not, usually either dropped or plea-bargained away. For myself I would like to see it made mandatory that whenever a crime is committed with a gun, that fact alone should result in an additional ten years tacked on to the sentence for the commission of the crime, no exceptions.

A lot of things are involved, you do a felony and five other crimes in connection, arrested and charges accordingly , your attorney and the States Attorney could very well agree that you take a plea on one or more, the others are dropped, lots of good reason to do so, for one, even if found guilty on all five many times the judge will have all the sentences for all five to run consecutively, all at the same time rather than concurrently , one after the other, quantity discount for the criminality inclined

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Stop easy access to guns and start up the ban again on AR type weapons that blast people to smithereens in seconds. This doesn't happen in other countries and it shouldn't happen in the U.S.

Great post. The UK and now Canada banned assault-style rifles and ALL handguns. The UK's gun crime dropped to near ZERO. And their children in schools and adults in church or ANY GATHERING do NOT have to feel FEAR like in the US.
.........And I enjoyed seeing the word "smithereens" used. Cute word and was more popular many years ago.
..........However, ballistically speaking, a high-velocity cartridge like the 223 does NOT blow up when it hits a target. High velocity will produce a VERY expanded wound channel in soft tissue. It could be (?) thought of as an explosion, but that is technically incorrect. However, several children at the Robb Elementary shooting had expanded exit wounds so SEVERE that their faces were unrecognizable to their parents.
...........Canada and the UK have done the right thing by concentrating on the GUN as the main factor to prevent MASS shootings - which in the US are happening at a rate of 1 or 2 every week. Prayers and thoughts are a distractor to a solution for the problem. Mental health is a distractor from the solution. The UK brought its GUN crime to almost zero, without changing its mental health outreach program. The US is the outlier with respect to GUN crime among 1st world nations.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"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 word "State", as used above, refers to the nation. Every right in the Bill of Rights protects the American people against Government overreach or oppression. It would be illogical to believe that only one of those ten rights, the Second Amendment, does not.

I don't have a problem with the right to "bear arms". When the 2nd amendment was written "arms" were single shot. I would be fine with single-shot arms. I have a problem with 30 round magazines. The only person that NEEDS a 30-round magazine is a person that is going to shoot into a crowd. (that happened this weekend with one drive-by MASS shooting
and several similar shootings into crowds) Would a hunter or person defending their home NEED a 30-round magazine?..........answer NO! Their home might be intruded by one or two people, but NOT by a CROWD, Only a DOMESTIC TERRORIST needs a 30-round Mag.
...........The US is getting tired of baby killers and the answer is to look at what Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK have done!

[jebartle]

Recent conversation about school shootings garnered a response, "because of all the foreigners being allowed in our country",??????????, my response, a blank stare!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I don't think anyone would advocate turning the clock back to the 50s across the board , but when you have a problem that you did not have before it seems logical and insightful to examine what changes were made and how to make corrections/ adjustments, we learn from mistakes, unintended consequences

The changes that happened since1950 are that the population of the US doubled and the tax money for everything from roads to mental health did NOT keep pace - also better public schools and a bigger and better Police Force did NOT keep pace. To that, add the change in the emphasis of the NRA and the GUN makers toward semi-auto military-style rifles with a higher profit margin and away from bolt-action hunting-type rifles. Add the change toward Civilian body armor and man-killing 30 round magazines.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Wrong and wrong. That's NOT what the 2nd amendment states or means. At the time it was written, we did not have a standing army. "Militias" were raised when a call went out for volunteers, many of whom were just farmers and frontiersman. That "militia" did not have an arsenal to hand out guns, the volunteers had to bring their own. Therefore, INDIVIDUALS were guaranteed the right to "bear arms", not just "state militiamen". In 1787, unless you were a city dweller, a gun was a necessity---hunting for food, protection against whomever, etc. Even 100 years later in the "wild west", the 2 most heinous crimes (punishable by hanging) were horse theft and gun theft, because without either you had a very short life expectancy. As Obi Wan Kenobi siad to Anikan Skywalker in Star Wars episode 2 after retrieving his light saber---"This weapon is your life"

Full disclosure----I've never even held a gun in my hand.

Interesting full disclosure........not even a semi-auto 9 iron? Full disclosure I have never held a light saber.
........Interesting History lesson. As to the "Wild West"........I remember reading that many people did not even carry a gun. And there was even a FAMOUS sheriff that did not carry a gun.
.........As to the 2nd Amendment - There was a Constitution expert on TV that said that the 2nd was PURPOSELY written in an ambiguous manner so as to please BOTH the Federalists and the States Rights types. Like a lot of things, when you try to please 2 opposing factions you just end up with an ambiguous, watered-down statement, which can have different interpretations.
..........I really don't care too much about "nit-picking" the meaning of the 2nd amendment (no mention of INDIVIDUAL). I only discussed it because so many here bring it up like GOD chiseled it out of stone.
..........The NRA and the Gun makers have a vested interest in interpreting the 2nd amendment to suit themselves - because big, GIANT profits and sums of money are involved. They use America's fascination with the rugged individualism and machismo of the wild west days to create a propaganda-like need for their high-profit wares.
............I feel that even the whole Constitution is a VERY old document that may NOT be relevant today.
............I feel that the Supreme Court represents 1/3 of the power of the US Government and is held in the hands of 9 UNELECTED members the get appointed for a LIFETIME (I disagree) based on WHO DIED and WHEN (during which Parties control). Seems like a STUPID system to me!

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I don't have a problem with the right to "bear arms". When the 2nd amendment was written "arms" were single shot. I would be fine with single-shot arms. I have a problem with 30 round magazines.

Um….
I have discovered,” Belton wrote to Congress on April 11, 1777, “an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time.”

And Washington agreed to it. In May 1777, he authorized Belton to make 100 of his rapid-fire muskets — but the plan fell apart before it even began, when Belton asked for what was deemed “unreasonable compensation” for his work.

Belton Flintlock: One of the first semi-automatic weapons may have been invented by a friend of Ben Franklin - On top of Philly news

You can also google the “knock volley gun”

Does the 2nd Amendment only apply to the quill and scroll? Because the type writer, laptop and twitter weren’t invented in 1776.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Good points.

Another point that could be made, in relation to the ones in this post, regards the actual weapons themselves. People sometimes state that the Second Amendment was written to reflect the arms of the time, muzzle-loading muskets, shotguns, the ubiquitous "Brown Bess" British musket which was used by the British (and some of the opposing colonists as well). True enough. But what ISN'T mentioned is the fact that a lot of the colonists used the Pennsylvania Rifle, which was a far superior weapon to the Brown Bess. The Bess was accurate to maybe 50 yards. After that it was anyone's guess as to where the ball was going. The Pennsylvania Rifle, on the other hand, was accurate to several hundreds of yards beyond that.

The point is that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the American colonists possessed a weapon that was in many ways SUPERIOR to the best the British armies had.

I believe that the Pennsylvania rifle had rifling grooves cut into the barrel to induce spin (like a thrown football) for the purpose of increased accuracy and range as opposed to the smoothbore muskets. The British were used to warfare where 2 armies marched toward each other at around 50 yards - so smoothbore muskets were fine at that distance and cheaper to produce and loaded easily.
..........A Pennsylvania rifle was like a sniper rifle today. A soldier in the Colonial army could shoot the Pa. rifle and retreat into dense woods.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

A lot of things are involved, you do a felony and five other crimes in connection, arrested and charges accordingly , your attorney and the States Attorney could very well agree that you take a plea on one or more, the others are dropped, lots of good reason to do so, for one, even if found guilty on all five many times the judge will have all the sentences for all five to run consecutively, all at the same time rather than concurrently , one after the other, quantity discount for the criminality inclined

Also, the US has the highest % of incarcerated people. So, maybe there is NOT enough rehabilitation going on in US prisons. The US may see a criminal as a "throw-away" resource, while other countries may see a criminal as a"renewable" resource.

[Taltarzac725]

It varies a lot by state as to how much rehabilitation is successful. How Atrocious Prisons Conditions Make Us All Less Safe | Brennan Center for Justice

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Also, the US has the highest % of incarcerated people. So, maybe there is NOT enough rehabilitation going on in US prisons. The US may see a criminal as a "throw-away" resource, while other countries may see a criminal as a"renewable" resource.

[SickTime]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Oh Geez, that's easy. You're not gonna like the answer though:

1. Two-parent homes for raising children;
2. A stay-at home parent;
3. Put away "participation trophies" and teach kids that heartbreak and losing are life lessons and doing so gracefully is important;
4. Return to discipline. Kids are your responsibility to society, NOT your new cuddly best friend for you to pamper and indulge;
5. Return to a shared moral code. In the past, it was Christianity and regular church attendance;
6. Return to community norms. No more, "but it's their culture to be rude" excuses. Abide by community standards or face social ostracism;
7. A return to accountability and personal responsibility for one's actions and behaviors.

I Agree with This. Until we figure out how to do everything on the list, I would suggest hiring armed security in all schools. If that is to costly for your school district then give Teachers who want to be trained in the use of weapons and be trained in "active shooter" an incentive to want to be able to save their own lives as well as the students. there are many solutions along this line. Stop blaming the gun and start protecting our children. Just my opinion of course.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by SickTime

I Agree with This. Until we figure out how to do everything on the list, I would suggest hiring armed security in all schools. If that is to costly for your school district then give Teachers who want to be trained in the use of weapons and be trained in "active shooter" an incentive to want to be able to save their own lives as well as the students. there are many solutions along this line. Stop blaming the gun and start protecting our children. Just my opinion of course.

Good point. It has always been interesting that the anti-gun people reject ANY answer or solution that does NOT ban (this time around, anyway) "assault" weapons.

The irony is that they could ban all sales of AR-15 -type weapons and it would make absolutely no difference at all in these crackpots committing these shootings. AR-15s have the shock value when seen but there are other, more efficient weapons (if you're looking for a more "efficient" way to kill a bunch of people) that are perfectly legal and in the hands of millions of people. Just one example: the Federal Government unloaded hundreds of thousands of M1 Carbines after WW II, a semi-auto that comes stock with a 20-round cartridge but 30 round cartridges are available: KCI makes them and they are cheap. You can do even more damage with the M1 Carbine than with the AR-15 especially at close ranges: the bullet is twice as heavy as that fired from the AR style weapons and they come in all sorts of configurations. Hornady makes a 115-grain hollow-point "critical defense" round, and there are rounds similar to that that are excellent deer-killers. And that is only ONE example of a readily-available means of causing mayhem that would outdo the AR-15 - type weapons. There are many others.

The more I think of it, the more it seems that the children are the pawns here. Banning AR-15 type weapons won't protect them. So why not take the steps that DO protect them?

[Woodbear]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I don't have a problem with the right to "bear arms". When the 2nd amendment was written "arms" were single shot. I would be fine with single-shot arms. I have a problem with 30 round magazines. The only person that NEEDS a 30-round magazine is a person that is going to shoot into a crowd. (that happened this weekend with one drive-by MASS shooting
and several similar shootings into crowds) Would a hunter or person defending their home NEED a 30-round magazine?..........answer NO! Their home might be intruded by one or two people, but NOT by a CROWD, Only a DOMESTIC TERRORIST needs a 30-round Mag.
...........The US is getting tired of baby killers and the answer is to look at what Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK have done!

According to the misguided, the First Amendment would only pertain to the public square and letterpress printing. The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned TV, Radio or the Internet. Next time someone wants to cry about the second amendment, please respond via inkwell pen.