The article says exactly that...

Repeating false information again and again does not magically make it correct...

I did read the discussion. And I do not agree that you have posted the ultimate authority on this discussion.

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right — giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

What Is The Second Amendment And How Is It Defined
NRA-ILA | What Is The Second Amendment And How Is It Defined.

Pot, meet kettle...

Well I found this even more interesting....and credible

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

The rigours of frontier life would have required pretty much anyone there to be well armed which I assume the Founding Fathers would have known.

They were addressing militia pretty much in the 2nd Amendment and not people carrying arms as that would have been a given in many situations.

Second Amendment - Harvard Law Review

Worth a look if you are interested in how legal scholars are looking at the 2nd Amendment in 2023 and just prior to 2023.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice

Corpus Linguistics and the Second Amendment - Harvard Law Review

Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment in Law Reviews, by
David B. Kopel

Pardon me if I take the words of the founding fathers more seriously than that of current "scholars" in determining their intent. Here is but a small sampling.


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

It is the Supreme Court and lower courts that determine in 2023 what the Founding Fathers meant in the 2nd Amendment.

The Founding Fathers had a revolution to win and a government to establish. The exploits of Davey Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, and other frontiersmen came later. The Founding Fathers and other colonists needed to be armed as individuals for their own protection as they and their families at times unfortunately had needed to engage in armed conflict not only with indigenous people but their own criminal element. The Founding Fathers therefore recognized individual citizens of the new country they were establishing needed the right to bear arms, thus the second amendment in 1791. Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia

Attempting to have an intellectual discussion with some people is so challenging.

You post the links to 4 different articles on what supposed scholars believe the founding fathers meant. Not one was to a court decision.

I post the text of what the founding fathers actually said, and say I take the word of them, over what supposed scholars say they meant. You have nothing to refute their words, so you reply that it is the courts that will decide what they meant.

Then why did you post worthless links to commentaries other than the courts?

And I don't disagree that the courts will decide, but that does not mean they will be correct. We just have to accept their decisions, correct or not. At least until we get the opportunity to correct any errors they made, e.g Plessy vs Ferguson and Roe V. Wade.

Exactly!!

Could you please define exactly what a “assault weapon” is and how it’s different than other firearms??

The same courts mandating the catch and release of criminals so they can go on and commit more crimes? That terrifies me!

And your quotes look like something pointed out by the NRA recently.

Please tell us exactly what a “assault weapon is“ and how it’s different from other firearms. I await your reply.



QUOTE=Taltarzac725;2214001]Would you allow homeowners to plant land mines, use grenades, flamethrowers, etc. to protect themselves? Probably not as they could easily blow themselves up or burn their homes down.

Flamethrowers, grenades, land mines are for warfare as also are assault weapons of various kinds.

A ban of some weapons meant for battlefields would at least cut down the flow of these into some areas and into some hands. Red flag laws and close monitoring of those with mental illness by friends, co-workers, and family could also help.[/QUOTE]

Please tell us exactly what a “assault weapon is“ and how it’s different from other firearms. I await your reply.

Please tell me how old AK 47 or as you call it “a weapon of war” is different than any other legally own firearm? How does it function differently? I await your reply.

These “assault rifles” cannot fire rounds, any faster than any other hunting rifle! They are semi automatic, which means one pull of the trigger is one bullet. They are not fully automatic machine guns! And in fact, my Weatherby hunting rifle has a bullet that’s four times as large. It does a lot more damage . I’m tired of the ignorance on this matter because people don’t educate themselves, they only go by what the MSM tells them. ������������

It is estimated by a number of different sources that legally armed citizens stop an aggressive assault/robbery nearly 2 million times a year. Many times, just brandishing their weapon stopped the attack before it started. Take your time on you tube and you can watch hours of videos from television stations across the U.S. reporting on armed citizens that saved themselves or another person. I sat one night and watched them for nearly 2 hours before I got tired and quit. Naturally you aren't going to see this on the national news networks because it refutes their anti-gun narrative. However, they never hesitate to incessantly broadcast and re-broadcast instances where a bad guy kills someone.

The quotes you listed are in very plain and simple terms that even a 10 year old can understand. There is nothing in what they said that can be construed any differently than as written.

Please tell us exactly what a “assault weapon is“ and how it’s different from other firearms. I await your reply.[/QUOTE]
An assault rifle is relatively light with a short barrel and a semi-automatic action with the capability to go full automatic. A key point is the cartridge used in the weapon. The cartridge must have a high velocity to cause bad wounds and ALSO to have a flat trajectory out to about 300 yds so it is easy for the soldier to use without changing sights or consulting a trajectory table. Also, the cartridge MUST have low recoil because most soldiers have problems with recoil and may flinch or jerk the trigger. So, high velocity and low recoil demand a 22 caliber cartridge and the .223 fits that bill. Also, the small caliber allows MORE ammo to be carried.

The main attribute of the AK 47 was it was easy to produce and manufacturing tolerances did NOT have to be exact. Because of this, it could be THROWN into a mud puddle and other abuse and it would come up FIRING.

I think people who read this know whom I am talking about here. I am trying to keep this from getting too political. WOKE is a new dog whistle and would fit right in with the novel 1984.

Lots of similarities - Hitler attacked his foil, the Jewish people. In Florida they attack Mickey Mouse. And school teachers and school children. Notice.........just some available group that is relatively weak.

NOT so ridiculous!

Book baning like any BAD policy can start out small and then expand into burning like in Fascist Germany.

Humans are the Cause NOT the Weapon
 

I remember this shooting. It was a personal beef between the shooter and the law firm. SFPD SWAT was on the scene immediately because they were doing training exercises nearby. There was so much confusion from the 911 calls that the SWAT team thought there were multiple shooters not just one guy. But no matter how fast the cops respond they will never be there in time to stop these nuts. Only another gun will. That’s a sad fact. The gun restrictions enacted post event are meaningless. Until we find a way to end jealousy, greed, anger and rage we will have violence. As a species we must own that.

Except that the kind of guns used often will allow the perpetrator to murder far more people. Thinking of the scenes from Saving Private Ryan and the weapons used during that landing. Those kind of weapons used in battles should be restricted to the military as much as possible. Something like them was pointed at a crowd in Las Vegas at a country-western concert by a man who collected weapons if memory serves. Stephen Paddock - Wikipedia AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia ArmaLite AR-10 - Wikipedia

The Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock. I don't think they were used during Saving Private Ryan times by the military as they had actual automatic weapons. Movie scenes are not real, but fantasy, just like some of the allegations in your arguments.

My late father of my sister-in-law landed in Normandy a few weeks after that battle and he found Saving Private Ryan very realistic. He met people who had been there on D-Day.

And you people are sure bringing up the personal attacks a lot. I never said that the Nazis had bump stocks. They had MG 42 - Wikipedia which is an very fast firing machine gun.

The US IS at war with itself right now. Fentanyl made in China is coming in, probably, through Mexico and killing about 100,000 US citizens per year. Notice that about 4 years ago we would hear of one mass murder event per month - today it is almost one mass murder in the US per day - and, believe it or NOT, it will continue to get worse until it touches even TV Land.
......Of course, one major problem is the massive number of guns in the US. For those who, mistakenly want to discount this factor just look at a chart of murders BY COUNTRY. The US is, by far the leader, #1. It is probably too late to change that fact, the NRA has bought up all the US leaders in Washington. But, the CHAOS and disunity within the US are also to blame. Today the unification of America is directly opposite to what it was during and after WW2.
.........Today's Washington leaders are NOT working for America, they are working for their particular Party and forget America!

People are about as hard to kill with a bullet as a groundhog or a fox, which is to say they are easy to kill - as animals go, humans are very weak. Smart, but weak. Now a 300 magnum is designed to kill moose and grizzly bears, not humans because it would be OVERKILL.
.......The 223 cartridge in a semi-auto short rifle is the perfect weapon to kill masses of humans. The main reason is that because of the LOW RECOIL the 223 cartridge can be used efficiently by criminals and crazy people that need NOT go to a range and practice shooting accuracy. It is SIMPLY easy to SHOOT. If a deranged person wants to shoot/kill about 4 people, they can accomplish that with a handgun. But, for the more ambitious crazies, they need a semi-auto short barrel 223 to attempt to kill between 5 to 10.
........The 223 in a AR-15 short rifle style has become the most popular man-killing weapon in the US. People are NOT buying them to HUNT groundhogs and foxes. HINT.......you might think that a SMART government would be able to take the popular MAN-KILLERS off of the MARKET. But, I guess that little gem of knowledge is beyond the good old USA.

They can't and that is the crux of the problem...

Are you denying that they are actual quotes from the Founding Fathers?

Or are they simply quotes you don't like?

An assault rifle is relatively light with a short barrel and a semi-automatic action with the capability to go full automatic. A key point is the cartridge used in the weapon. The cartridge must have a high velocity to cause bad wounds and ALSO to have a flat trajectory out to about 300 yds so it is easy for the soldier to use without changing sights or consulting a trajectory table. Also, the cartridge MUST have low recoil because most soldiers have problems with recoil and may flinch or jerk the trigger. So, high velocity and low recoil demand a 22 caliber cartridge and the .223 fits that bill. Also, the small caliber allows MORE ammo to be carried.[/QUOTE]

The only part of your statement that was correct was the first sentence... (except for the "short barrel" part)

Everything after that was garbage...

The only part of your statement that was correct was the first sentence... (except for the "short barrel" part)

Everything after that was garbage...

Which has nothing to do with the civilian version being an assault weapon...

Just more "word salad"...

Disgusting comparison...

Good thing no one is banning books...

Those were MACHINE GUNS!!!

NO ONE is talking about MACHINE GUNS!!!

And the Vegas shooter did not use "something like them"...

This is why it is pointless to have a conversation with people who refuse to educate themselves, and those who completely ignore the facts of the discussion, even when given those facts time and time again...