2nd Amendment. What did the Founding Fathers consider "arms".
 

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 also believe their definition of the press and speech was far different from the means of communication in 2022.

They also had different: indoor plumbing, cars, airplanes, golf courses, 65" TV's, new balance tennis shoes, soft serve ice-cream, amazon prime deals and waaaay different xfinity back then! Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....
:posting:

“Arms” were definitely different then than now. Careful this could quickly get political.

So was their attire. Can anyone imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in a wife beater shirt with a crass logo on it, wearing baggy shorts and Nike sneakers with no socks (hosiery) topped off with a baseball cap worn backwards? Maybe having some piercings, multiple earrings and facial tattoos?

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

And none of the founding father or any founders, lived in Florida in the summer.

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

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...

Well they did not have to rely on bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs and peashooters. They had cannon, mortar and howitzers. Not only was it lethal, it was brutal.

Get To Know The Brutal Artillery Of The Revolutionary War | The Drive

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.

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

That's not exactly true. You should read up on your history, before misquoting and misleading the masses.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Well, except the war with the king was over. Maybe they feared he might come back, but from my reading it seemed it was more about loyalists. Also, the south had a thing that they were afraid if guns were not allowed their slaves would revolt or run away, so to insure the South would sign on they promised to put an amendment for allowing guns for "militia" to control the slaves.

And 14 virgins feeding you grapes - LOL!

Rifles that was assault weapon in 1870s


Winchester Model 1892 - Wikipedia

Henry rifle - Wikipedia

The media and Hollywood sensational for there agenda.

Two Hollywood series comes to mind that sensationalized the repeating rifle

The Rifleman and wanted dead or alive. Who used the rifles to mow down the bad guys. Then, there the movie 3000 miles from Graceland and dozens more. All this sensationalized mass killing that pollute undeveloped adolescent mines. Then add the hundreds Violent video games and you have the prefect mind of mass shooter IMO.

The wag was Niccolo Machiavelli.

I have not yet begun to fight
 

naval battles occurred on lake george ny. Their remains are underwater for all to view

Very good
 

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

I think one can make a better argument that what was the concern was a powerful central government authority, whey were still rebels with a decided preference for local government, states rights were preeminent right up to the civil war, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I think at that point they were more concerned with having the "new boss same as the old boss"

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

No, No, No. If you know and understand firearms, you would change your opinion. However we do have a Constitution, and are obligated to abide by it.
Those who choose to commit "mass murder", don't care about the law.
And BTW, millions of us own at least one semi-automatic, and we don't go around killing people.

So is the free press the 1st amendment refers to. No longer newspapers or word of mouth but the 1st amendment still applies.

definitely no assault rifles

You missed lawyers, lots and lots of lawyers down there.

Grazie molto!

I do have a question. If the 2nd amendment is interpreted as many people claim why is there a restriction on automatic firearms or tanks or anything? If you can afford it, you can buy it.

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.

Go bro
 

Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....



Come back from the edge I’d hate to see you get bumped for a month like I did for saying the B word

The problem with a lot of the people who demand taking away the right to arm and defend oneself is their lack of understanding what happens in the real world. This is what I learned as a retired L.E.O.

already did before you posted it, that was the original intent..

And the point to this would be?

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

The point is, that then they did not think about Nukes. Should we allow citizens have nukes?

Okay, I will assume you are going to answer no. Then, I (and over Hal fthe country) think citizens should have pea shooters. Now, where in between those two should be be?

Well, I could say the opposite is true, since we are the country with massive numbers of guns and we are the country with all the gun related deaths. It seems the rest of the world doesn't have that problem.

Maybe it is just because all Americans are crazy?

Citizens with weapons was designed to allow them to protect themselves from government tyranny or a dictator. Same reasons are valid today

Wow. I must have been absent that day in history class. Didn't realize that Eisenhower was one of the Founding Fathers!

And, what does the growth of the military industrial complex have to do with the private ownership of firearms?

OP, yes, today’s weapons are different. No argument there.

What is your specific question or what is the specific point you want to make?