[Taltarzac725]

That 300 count comes from statistics Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive.

Statistics are manipulated often by people but are hard to argue with in some way.

From the link--

Mass Shooting Methodology and Reasoning
Mass Shootings are, for the most part an American phenomenon. While they are generally grouped together as one type of incident they are several with the foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The Heston quote brings out a very good point. The information on this topic is all too often hidden by the deluge of MISinformation about guns and the right to bear them. Social media (the ultimate oxymoron) guarantees that no matter how bizarre one's beliefs, he or she not only find like-minded people but also manufactured and misinterpreted information to support that belief. A prime example is one that has been mentioned here: 300 or more "mass shootings" so far this year--not a statistic, but the result of completely changing the definition of the term "mass shooting" by including gang and criminal-on-criminal gun violence. Not only that, but those same people have been so conditioned by media to associate "mass shooting" with "AR-15" that they immediately assume AR-15's have been involved in most or all of those manufactured "mass shootings" when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the difference between looking for information vs. hunting for validation. Far too many of us, when we hear "information" that supports this-or-that point of view we have, believe it without question.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.

[Taltarzac725]

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution is changeable. It can be amended. If there are indeed as many people opposed to the Second Amendment as it is written and interpreted, it should be no problem at all mustering up the necessary votes to amend it.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

I would imagine Franklin would have looked to the enforcement of our law in dealing with a gunfight with any weapons on our streets.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

I would be quite interested if this has actually happened in any city in the U.S. Do you have an article you can share?

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.

Basic legal premise if it is not specify prohibited it is allowed

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

[Reiver]

What an obtuse statement.. The Constitution does not ban any weapons, and therefor allows any weapon to be owned.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

You still have it backwards. See reply #219.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Reiver

What an obtuse statement.. The Constitution does not ban any weapons, and therefor allows any weapon to be owned.

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.

This is left up to the states to decide. The Constitution does not guarantee that you have the right to possess any weapon you want to possess. It only gives you the right to bear arms. If the states want to dictate WHICH arms you are allowed to bear, they retain that right to dictate. And in fact, the Federal Government also has the right to restrict use of specific arms.

As long as you're allowed to bear SOME arms - they are not violating that amendment.

Further, 2A is not infallible. It can be further amended, appended, edited, or repealed.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.

This is left up to the states to decide. The Constitution does not guarantee that you have the right to possess any weapon you want to possess. It only gives you the right to bear arms. If the states want to dictate WHICH arms you are allowed to bear, they retain that right to dictate. And in fact, the Federal Government also has the right to restrict use of specific arms.

As long as you're allowed to bear SOME arms - they are not violating that amendment.

Further, 2A is not infallible. It can be further amended, appended, edited, or repealed.

Reminder, the Constitution puts limits on our government. It does not put limits on the citizens. That is an import distinction to understand. The States do not have carte blanche to right laws restricting citizen behavior. All State and local laws MUST be Constitutional as they are inferior to the Constitution which is the supreme law of our land. In other words, the States can't violate our Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Amendments.

Reminder, to remove an amendment requires an amendment. The same holds for modifying an amendment. To do that requires 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass that amendment. That would require 37 of 50 states to pass such an amendment.

As a practical observation. Never has an amendment that acknowledges a Right been removed. I don't think any of us will live long enough to see State legislatures actually succeed in taking away a Right. This current Administration can talk big and threatening but I can assure you that is not a line they will ever cross.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

True, but Amendments, once passed and ratified by 3/4 of the states are then a part of the Constitution and can only be amended, edited or dropped by implementing the same process that was used in their adoption: proposed in Congress where it must pass by 2/3 vote in each house, then sent to the states for ratification. If 3/4 of the states ratify it, it becomes a part of the Constitution.

The only other way is by Constitutional Convention, which is basically "back to the drawing board" on all or parts of the Constitution, but that can only come about if 2/3 of the states call for it by majority vote of the people in each state, and then any changes proposed at the convention must be passed by a 3/4 vote of the states (38 out of 50) before the changes become part of the Constitution. There has never been a Constitutional Convention since the first one, though there have been hundreds of calls for one.

See "Office of the Federal Register" website for a detailed explanation.

[Get real]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.

Exactly. The states with the highest illegal gun crime rate. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by rsimpson

May I borrow this for future reasonable discussions? Thanks in Advance.

Sorry, it was just me throwing out my thoughts in frustration when the subject comes up. If you are serious, feel free. Not that it is the most coherent writing. It's just my opinion.