More guns keeping us safe.......

[Blues Man]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

and you have none

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

What imagination...actual research from the Centers for Disease Control, and then actual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control......

 

[Ernie S.]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

and you have none

Apparently has problems reading as well.

 

[westwall]

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

 

[westwall]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

And you have none.

That's the problem with statists such as yourself, you have zero imagination and resent those of us who do. You are content to be the mushroom in the corner.

We are not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

 

[Rustic]

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

 

[westwall]

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

 

[2aguy]

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Blues Man]

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

 

[westwall]

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

 

[Brain357]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

They actually did CDC level research to find that number.....isn't that what you asshats keep demanding....more CDC research? Until it proves the opposite of what you want to find...right?

 

[Brain357]

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

What was used in our worst mass shooting? Second worst?

 

[Brain357]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

They actually did CDC level research to find that number.....isn't that what you asshats keep demanding....more CDC research? Until it proves the opposite of what you want to find...right?

You are still making that false claim? You love being dishonest.

 

[Brain357]

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

 

[2aguy]

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

What was used in our worst mass shooting? Second worst?

Second worst, two pistols at Virginia Tech 32 .....worst, a rifle 58.

Nice, France, rental truck 86, with 435 injured.

Japan, 33 killed with fire.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.