[waterflower]

defund the c i a ... mind control program there are many...defund big pharma drugs

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Joe C.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People NEED to understand what infringed means.

There will always be criminals. They will always break the law. And when seconds count, the police can be there within minutes.

You forgot the first part. Here's the whole sentence:

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.

(from the actual Constitution)

The point of the amendment was to prevent the need of the the country to have a professional standing army. Members of the militia, who were just individual citizens, had to use their own personal weapons. The 2nd amendment gave them the right to possess and carry their own weapons to use when they were called on to serve, so that the government didn't have to fund an arsenal. That's why 2a was written.

It was never intended to be used outside "militia business." It turned into that later on, but that isn't why the amendment was written.

At the time, in the "wild wild west" most towns outlawed possession of guns if you weren't a deputy or member of the Sheriff's office or other town official. You'd have to check your weapon when you entered the town, get a chit, and then turn the chit in when you left to get your weapon back.

You can check on the historic "Gunfight at the OK Corral" (which didn't actually happen at the corral) for some history on ordinances prohibiting the possession of firearms in towns.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by zendog3

Mass shootings are typically done by weapons designed for that purpose. I think it would be great fun to blaze away a few hundred rounds at targets, so I don't object to people owning and using them. But those weapons designed for mass killing are obviously too deadly for anyone be allowed to use anytime, and anywhere, they want. Owners of AR-15 type weapons should be required to store them in armories and use them at restricted gun ranges.

Please explain the Va Tech shooting, where 33 ADULT students were killed with 2 handguns... Or the Charleston Church shooting...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

You forgot the first part. Here's the whole sentence:


(from the actual Constitution)

The point of the amendment was to prevent the need of the the country to have a professional standing army. Members of the militia, who were just individual citizens, had to use their own personal weapons. The 2nd amendment gave them the right to possess and carry their own weapons to use when they were called on to serve, so that the government didn't have to fund an arsenal. That's why 2a was written.

It was never intended to be used outside "militia business." It turned into that later on, but that isn't why the amendment was written.

At the time, in the "wild wild west" most towns outlawed possession of guns if you weren't a deputy or member of the Sheriff's office or other town official. You'd have to check your weapon when you entered the town, get a chit, and then turn the chit in when you left to get your weapon back.

You can check on the historic "Gunfight at the OK Corral" (which didn't actually happen at the corral) for some history on ordinances prohibiting the possession of firearms in towns.

If you want to be historically, the "Wild West" was fiction, the writings of dime store novelists...

And nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the writings of it's authors, did they talk of citizens being "called on to serve"...

What they did talk about was protection from a tyrannical government...

[MDLNB]

Updated May 9, 2022 Heritage.org:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets. "
There's plenty of research done on bad and good uses of guns in America, but the anti-gun folks (scared of the big bad guns) focus on the school shootings more than anything else, such as gang/drug shootings for example. Maybe they are just racist?
Off subject but sort of related, America maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons but enjoys telling other countries that they must either NOT have them or must limit the size and quantity of them. You can make of that statement what you wish. Just a thought.
Now, how many school shootings do you think you could eliminate IF all public schools had ten foot fences around them with an armed security checking IDs at the gate? Perhaps even using a metal detector? Well, you do not hear of many (if any) mass shootings within the inner cities that have security fences to keep the drug pushers out. Some physical security is not that expensive. But, why not spend some money on physical security? Shoot, some states have "Education" lotteries where the revenues from the State Lottery goes to building and maintaining public schools.
The type of guns used in shootings does not matter if the perp is deterred by making it impossible or difficult to get to the target. Bad guys prefer soft targets.
You can't always predict when a person is going to lose their mind and become violent. You cannot take away folks rights based on theory or the acts of a minority group of mental cases. If an average of a million folks in our country are saved every year by guns, then why would you think that by taking away the "good guy's" gun it would make good people safer?
It ain't hard folks. A tall fence and a guard or two and maybe even some security cameras really won't break the budget. But, it could save some children's lives while you all figure out how to do the "Minority Report" movie idea of predicting when a crime is going to be committed and who is going to do it, so you can violate someone's rights and arrest them before they break the law.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jammaiora

The problem is there are more guns in the USA than people - 110 guns for every 100 persons. GW Bush and his party let the assault weapon ban expire and gun violence skyrocketed after. We need Federal laws on Red Flag, gun registration, 21 years old, waiting periods, gun use training, and assault rifle ban (AR 15 type). That would be a start!

The problem is people who are easily manipulated to believe falsehoods and lies. Please do the research and get the facts rather simply believe what is spoon fed by the media.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

FBI statistics are good sources of data.

Fact: Gun violence is an undefined term. Words are selected to skew the impact of an event. Gun deaths would cover all deaths related to firearms. Gun murders would be self explanatory.

Fact: IN 2020, 54% of all gun related deaths were suicide. Yet, those numbers are included in "gun violence". Someone committed to ending their own life will do it regardless of the method. Japan is a prime example of that.

Fact: Since 1980 our population has increased by 45% from 227M to 329M. Every statistic will have increased so it must be put into context.

Fact. In 1974 the murder rate was 7.2 per 100,000. The murder rate steadily fell, not skyrocketed, until 2020 when it began to climb again to 6.2 per 100,000, still below 1974. That rise is likely tied to the pandemic.

The bottom line is murder by firearm is lower per capita than 1974. When someone proclaims that it has skyrocketed it is clearly a case of not doing the research but simply believing the narrative of someone with a political agenda. The truth is the truth.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

The problem is people who are easily manipulated to believe falsehoods and lies. Please do the research and get the facts rather simply believe what is spoon fed by the media.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

FBI statistics are good sources of data.

Fact: Gun violence is an undefined term. Words are selected to skew the impact of an event. Gun deaths would cover all deaths related to firearms. Gun murders would be self explanatory.

Fact: IN 2020, 54% of all gun related deaths were suicide. Yet, those numbers are included in "gun violence". Someone committed to ending their own life will do it regardless of the method. Japan is a prime example of that.

Fact: Since 1980 our population has increased by 45% from 227M to 329M. Every statistic will have increased so it must be put into context.

Fact. In 1974 the murder rate was 7.2 per 100,000. The murder rate steadily fell, not skyrocketed, until 2020 when it began to climb again to 6.2 per 100,000, still below 1974. That rise is likely tied to the pandemic.

The bottom line is murder by firearm is lower per capita than 1974. When someone proclaims that it has skyrocketed it is clearly a case of not doing the research but simply believing the narrative of someone with a political agenda. The truth is the truth.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

You forgot the first part. Here's the whole sentence:


(from the actual Constitution)

The point of the amendment was to prevent the need of the the country to have a professional standing army. Members of the militia, who were just individual citizens, had to use their own personal weapons. The 2nd amendment gave them the right to possess and carry their own weapons to use when they were called on to serve, so that the government didn't have to fund an arsenal. That's why 2a was written.

It was never intended to be used outside "militia business." It turned into that later on, but that isn't why the amendment was written.

At the time, in the "wild wild west" most towns outlawed possession of guns if you weren't a deputy or member of the Sheriff's office or other town official. You'd have to check your weapon when you entered the town, get a chit, and then turn the chit in when you left to get your weapon back.

You can check on the historic "Gunfight at the OK Corral" (which didn't actually happen at the corral) for some history on ordinances prohibiting the possession of firearms in towns.

Not even close, I'm afraid. Our Founding Fathers coped with a tyrannical government for decades and then fought an 8 year war with the most powerful standing army of their time. They were not in favor of America having a standing Army and they were not in favor of a strong central government becoming tyrannical inevitably.

It was debated whether to have Rights written into the Constitution but the fear was that it would be too limiting. Instead, they create a process to add amendments. There were states who did not want a strong federal government, they were the anti-federalists. But, there was pressure to ratify the Constitution and it had to be unanimous. States demanded a Bill of Rights before they would agree to this new government.

James Madison and George Mason adapted the Virginia Bill of Rights and sent them to the House of Representatives. There were 17 Amendments. The House changed some wording, etc. and sent them to the Senate. The Senate worked on the Amendments and sent the final 12 to the States for ratification. The states ratified 10 of the Amendments which became our Bill of Rights.

Two did not get approved by the states. The original 1st Amendment did not get passed by the States. It involved how the members of Congress would be selected. Had they past that Amendment we would have over 6,000 members of Congress today. No thanks!

The original 2nd Amendment had to do with paying members of Congress. It read: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." That Amendment finally did get passed in 1992. Over 200 years after it was sent to he states.

The original 3rd Amendment became what we call the 1st Amendment. The original 4th Amendment became what we call the 2nd Amendment.

When these were first written and sent to the House they were "Articles, not Amendments".

It is interesting to note that the original text sent to the House on the right to keep and bear arms read like this:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." It was modified to what we now call the 2nd Amendment.

"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."

Sadly, most Americans today are not well versed in our Constitution and that is concerning. How do we protect something we no longer fully understand and in many cases don't even thing about? I find too many people simply don't understand the words as they were written in 1787. Our Founding Fathers debated at length every single concept of our Freedom documents. They chose every single word carefully. If you really want to know what the words mean you need to consult Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. That two volume set of books defines every word used by the Framers.

I have nearly 70 books in my personal collection just on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Half of them are over 100 years old. My oldest is Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785, the very dictionary that they used. I have Montesquiue's Spirit of Laws printed in 1793 (6th edition) which is how the Framers defined the separation of powers.

I am all for having an intellectual conversation about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and other important writings of the period. But would insist on doing it factually, honestly, and respectfully.