2nd Amendment Discussion

[Gracie]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

 

[Pete7469]

Absolutely disagree.

There is NOT ONE WORD in the Constitution about cannons, hand grenades, bombs, rockets, poisons, etc. All of which existed at the time of ratification. There also were semi-auto air guns capable of killing men, just very expensive. The framers had to understand weapons of war would evolve and they made absolutely no provisions for the government to suppress private ownership of any weapon.

Period.


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Gracie
The 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights that also includes
* right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble
* right of people to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* right of people NOT to be DEPRIVED of life liberty or property without due process of laws

We need to unite in ENFORCING the whole context and not teaching
false interpretations or misrepresentations that the Constitution in any way allows
for the bearing of arms that VIOLATES other rights within the same set of Constitutional principles
that the 2nd Amendment is PART OF.

No part can be "taken out of context" to abuse to VIOLATE other rights
freedoms and protections under the same laws.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ENFORCE and DEFEND laws, not to violate them.

So if someone is stockpiling or threatening to abuse weapons where they
are already causing a threat, disruption, or breach to the peace, health or safety of others,
that's already violating Constitutional principles where it is creating a threat or hazard endangering others and violating their equal rights to protection, security and peace.

The benefit of teaching and enforcing these laws consistently in every district,
is the process of outreach and setting up means for making and resolving complaints
of threats, hazards or dangers ALSO serves to SCREEN OUT people with disabilities or
disorders that prevent them from complying with laws and authorities.

So we'd solve the mental health issue as well by setting up outreach programs
that would serve to screen and refer people who trigger threats and complaints
to get help in advance. This would have prevented the issues in cases like Cruz in the
Parkland shooting who would have received help in time had a local system been
in operation to address complaints when they were first reported. This can be
done through local school districts and county health programs without any
conflict or issue raised affecting gun rights and beliefs about gun regulations.

 

[Hossfly]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Gracie, you have to understand why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. My understanding is: that it was and is "to keep the government honest." Preventing the Liberal Democrats from confiscating weapons is the reason it was written and approved.
The 2nd Amendment is the single thing that keeps our enemies from invading the US. Just imagine if ISIS invaded after all weapons were confiscated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so – such as the Second Amendment right.

Consequently, citizens are not required to justify seeking to own an AR or AK platform rifle or carbine – or any other semi-automatic version of a military/battle rifle or carbine.

Current Second Amendment case law places weapons in one of two categories: those considered dangerous and unusual (sawed off shotguns, fully automatic rifles and carbines) whose possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and weapons considered to be in common use (all handguns, most long guns) whose possession are entitled to Constitutional protections.

Current Second Amendment case law also holds that AR and AK platform rifles and carbines may be considered dangerous and unusual, allowing states and local jurisdictions to aggressively regulate such weapons, where that regulation does not place an undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

 

[Gracie]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Gracie, you have to understand why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. My understanding is: that it was and is "to keep the government honest." Preventing the Liberal Democrats from confiscating weapons is the reason it was written and approved.
The 2nd Amendment is the single thing that keeps our enemies from invading the US. Just imagine if ISIS invaded after all weapons were confiscated.

But I am not saying we give up our weapons. I'm saying there is no reason for a citizen to own or be permitted to own a weapon of mass destruction...which is what machine guns are. Are we allowed to arm ourselves with nukes to keep the government honest? The government is crooked and has been for a very long time. Its now coming to light, what with the major division this presidency has caused....not by the potus, but by the ones that lost the nomination. Division. And its getting worse, which will eventually turn into another civil war with the right against the left.

 

[hjmick]

No one in the United States is allowed to legally own a machine gun without a license from the federal government.

Machine guns have not been used in any of the recent mass shootings. To my knowledge, machine guns have not been used in any mass shootings.

Perhaps they have been used in gang shootings, but again, those were obtained illegally.

 

[Agit8r]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

 

[Gracie]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

 

[Gracie]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

 

[Pete7469]

 

[Agit8r]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp, like machine guns and grenade launchers are. It's common sense. But how much compliance will there be? There is a guarantee that this sort of violence will continue for some time, unless those illegally providing the weapons to the evildoers begin facing terrorism charges. Aiding and abetting in any manner should be a capital crime.

 

[hjmick]

He's not wrong... It may have been a bit too soon for such a... Tweet... but he's not wrong.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Come And Get Dip Shit "

* Fart Box *

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

 

[task0778]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

It is already illegal for Americans to own an automatic weapon, has been for a long time. By that I am referring to a weapon where you pull the trigger once and hold it down, a shitload of bullets come out, one right after the other in one quick hurry. However, semi-automatic weapons are at present legal, not sure if they have been outlawed in certain locales but I think they have. These weapons, when you pull the trigger once, you only get one bullet being fired. You have to pull the trigger again to get a 2nd bullet out. So, a semi-automatic AK47 or AR15 may look like a WMD, but it ain't. Problem: it can be modified to become an automatic weapon, which is illegal already. You cannot own an automatic weapon.

Consider this:

According to the FBI, rifles of all kinds accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. Contrary to what you may have heard, handguns are also by far the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as "assault weapons" under the definition used in a 2013 bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). More recent data show a similar pattern.

And

In the most recent weekend of carnage in Chicago, in which 47 people were shot and 7 died. Not by assault-type machine guns.

And

Mass shooters probably prefer the AR-15 (or AK47-“style” weapons) for aesthetic reasons. But these weapons are responsible for only a sliver of gun homicides. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994 to 2004) did little, if anything, to alter gun violence trends. Once the assault weapon ban was lifted, and the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the country, gun violence continued to steeply fall.



So - should the gov't ban them? What about every other semi-automatic gun, rifle or pistol? I have a 9mm semi-automatic pistol that fires 16 bullets, one at a time. Don't really know if that pistol could be modified, I never looked into it cuz I know it's against the law. It's for self-defense, makes me and the wife feel safer. It never leaves the house, but then again neither do we much. Just for groceries, appts and such. But I think I have the right to self-defense, and these days that means a gun. We don't have a catapult though. Thinking about getting one though, the neighbor's dog doesn't like me.

I stand corrected, as RetiredGySgt says. You can own an automatic weapon like he says.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Gracie, you have to understand why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. My understanding is: that it was and is "to keep the government honest." Preventing the Liberal Democrats from confiscating weapons is the reason it was written and approved.
The 2nd Amendment is the single thing that keeps our enemies from invading the US. Just imagine if ISIS invaded after all weapons were confiscated.

But I am not saying we give up our weapons. I'm saying there is no reason for a citizen to own or be permitted to own a weapon of mass destruction...which is what machine guns are. Are we allowed to arm ourselves with nukes to keep the government honest? The government is crooked and has been for a very long time. Its now coming to light, what with the major division this presidency has caused....not by the potus, but by the ones that lost the nomination. Division. And its getting worse, which will eventually turn into another civil war with the right against the left.

People are not allowed to own machinguns or fully automatic rifles in 13 States and in the rest it requires a special license from the Federal Government with a background check a large fee and a requirement you inform the Government of where the weapon is all the time. Semi automatic rifles are NOT Machineguns no matter how you wish they were.

 

[SavannahMann]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Your opinions are not supported by Historical Evidence. First, let’s begin with Cannons. It is a fact that a majority of our “navy” at the time of the Revolution and through the war of 1812, were made up of Privateers. Privateers were granted authority under a Letter of Marque to make war upon enemy ships, and seize them for profit. Essentially legal pirates so long as they only targeted “enemy” ships. These Privateers were armed with Cannons. Privately owned cannons. In fact, they had more than ten cannon for everyone the American Navy had. Privateers or Merchant Mariners help win the Revolutionary War

So the idea that the Founders could not envision, nor intend, for Privately owned Cannon is false upon it’s face. If you were unaware of this, then perhaps you are starting to get an idea of what the Founders really intended.

As for “military grade weapons” that is also covered in history. But we must step back. Everyone sees the term Well Regulated Militia, and assumes it was similar to our National Guard. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the Militia was required, riders went to each town and settlement, and declared that the Militia had been activated, and they were levied for a percentage of the males in town. You see, every single able bodied free man was in the Militia by law.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

One of the first things codified by the First United States Congress was the Militia Act. This declared as stated above, that every able bodied man was in the Militia. The term Well Regulated meant that the Governor’s of the States could and would appoint officers. Commission them to serve in the Militia. Surgeon’s and the like were normally Warrant Officers. Given a Warrant instead of a Commission. Sergeants are still known as Non Commissioned Officers by the way.

When you were activated, pressed into service. You were expected to obey Military type orders, and adhere to Military type Discipline. This was the term Well Regulated, that officers would be Appointed, and would have the full authority over the Troops.

But wait, we were talking about weapons. Congress found that the types of weapons owned by the citizens were generally speaking too small, that is to say of an insufficient caliber, to be considered viable in a war. The standard military weapon of that day was a .60 or .75 Musket. The Citizens who had to buy their own lead to cast their own bullets, tended to use smaller calibers for hunting, as the larger caliber weapons were subsequently more expensive to shoot in powder, and lead. Congress ordered that weapons be procured for the Militia that would be sufficient for the use in war. While this was never done, the order by Congress shows the intent. Serious weapons were not only intended, but expected by be held by the Citizens.

But what about Machine Guns you will say? First, very few Machine Guns are in the hands of the citizens today. Those that are, are heavily licensed through the ATF. It is expensive to get the “stamp” for the weapon, and you must have a stamp for each weapon. What you are talking about are Semi Automatic Rifles. That is to say that every time you pull the trigger, one round will fire. You must then release the trigger enough for it to reset, before you can fire another round.

But what about the people being able to buy these weapons? In 1718 long before the Revolution of 1776, there was a rapid fire weapon invented called the Puckle Gun. Puckle gun - Wikipedia

This was known to the Founders, and if you are going to tell me that Benjamin Franklin, the man who foresaw the modern Paratroopers of the Airborne Forces in use by most militaries around the world could not imagine a future with rapid firing weapons, I’ll laugh at you right now. Yes, Franklin was one of the first who wrote after seeing DaVinci’s sketch of a man suspended below a parachute about Paratroopers. He asked the reader to imagine what a battalion of troops could do behind the lines. Imagine how long it would take to raise a sufficient force to stop them. Now, if Franklin could imagine the chaos caused by the Airborne on D-Day, what makes you think that modern weapons would stun him into speechlessness?

Privately Owned Machine Guns, actual machine guns, accompanied Teddy Roosevelt up San Juan Hill. Rough Riders - Wikipedia

During the lifetimes of the Founders, Cannons went from being fired by “Slow Match” which was really more of a long smoldering wick, to Flintlock. The first breechloading cannons were being tested, so the future was known to the Founders. They knew that science and engineering would create better and more reliable weapons, history had already shown the steady improvement of the sort of thing.

So the Founders intended Military Grade weapons to be in the hands of the Citizens, at least every Able Bodied Free Man. Since we no longer have slaves, and equality between the sexes is a given, we can say that the Founders would expect that right to apply to everyone.

The answers you seek exist. They are found in history. They are not found in the modern reinterpretation of the language, but must be found in the context of the writing. What the words meant at that time, and to those people.

Finally, your characterization of the weapons as being good only for mass death. In short. Nonsense. If that is all the rifles that scare you are good for, then those rifles have failed. Miserably. Because there are literally millions of them that are not doing their job of mass death.

We do not blame Ford when a Drunk plows into a van load of Nuns and Orphans. We do not blame Airbus when the Pilot flies the plane into the side of a mountain. We don’t blame Victorianox when a knife cuts us. We blame the individuals. We blame those who take that action. Only when it comes to guns, do we rush to blame the article, the inanimate object for the disaster.

You are looking at the 2nd Amendment, and all the Amendments wrong. You are looking at them as reasonable restrictions on the public. Turn it around, and remove Reasonable. The Bill of Rights was written like the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Thou Shall Not abridge freedom of Speech. Thou shall not.

There are no punishments for violating the Ten Commandments listed among them. That comes later. There is no punishment for violating the Bill of Rights. That was supposed to come from the populace. Thou Shall Not.

 

[Picaro]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states, whose requirements varied a lot. We also know that later on many western towns, cities, counties in the West also regulated them for various reasons, including banning them entirely from certain parts of towns. The history is messy and of course will make most on on all sides make claims they can't really support and thus resort to fantasy narratives. I don't care what some theory or fantasy says about regulating or prohibiting some weapons, since I don't give a crap about Goober Pyle up the street's 'right' to try and make his own nuclear warhead in his garage with some plutonium he bought at some military surplus sale, nor do I want the nutjob on the other end of the street stockpiling 600 left over 500# bombs in his back yard, regardless of what some armchair loon claims the 2nd Amendment says.

Machine guns? Yes, they were 'legal' for a while, then they were heavily restricted. Why? because the world is full of idiots an sociopaths who abused them, that's why. Same for explosives, etc. Most sane people don't give a crap what extremist loons on either side of these ridiculously absurd arguments think, they want common sense laws and restrictions,.

 

[SavannahMann]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states, whose requirements varied a lot. We also know that later on many western towns, cities, counties in the West also regulated them for various reasons, including banning them entirely from certain parts of towns. The history is messy and of course will make most on on all sides make claims they can't really support and thus resort to fantasy narratives. I don't care what some theory or fantasy says about regulating or prohibiting some weapons, since I don't give a crap about Goober Pyle up the street's 'right' to try and make his own nuclear warhead in his garage with some plutonium he bought at some military surplus sale, nor do I want the nutjob on the other end of the street stockpiling 600 left over 500# bombs in his back yard, regardless of what some armchair loon claims the 2nd Amendment says.

Machine guns? Yes, they were 'legal' for a while, then they were heavily restricted. Why? because the world is full of idiots an sociopaths who abused them, that's why. Same for explosives, etc. Most sane people don't give a crap what extremist loons on either side of these ridiculously absurd arguments think, they want common sense laws and restrictions,.

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

 

[miketx]

Come get mine.