Summations Only

But you are arguing against something I never said.That is a strawman. So I can dictate what many own positions are, you cannot.Oh yeah the pepperbox is a post revolutionary weapon.Again my claim of founders only allowing single shot muzzle loaders is an absurdity, to show that they were unable to conceive of the weapons around today. It is not ridiculous to think they may have rethought this amendment if they knew we would someday ahve bushmasters and glocks. But in this case it has not been allowed to grow and expand.

quote:

---

Zombies.

---

Oukei - I was sure there was a valid reason but could just not come up with it myself. Hopefully the living dead do not cross the pond because in here there in no chance in h3ll of getting to buy an AK-47 or M-16.

Apparently, the 'right to bear arms' clause was a straight copy of the English Bill of Rights of a hundred years earlier - but with the bit about being subject to law removed. Sounds like someone cocked up.......You also had to be a Protestant too.

The glib response would be that the process of getting rid of the 3/5 compromise required a civil war. I also note that the process of amending the constitution to provide equal rights to women was a 50+ year effort that ultimately failed.In this case, the prospect of getting 38 states to sign onto a constitution amendment that markedly reduces the number of guns in the population would seem to have a vanishingly small chance for success.But yes it is possible to amend the constitution.

No, examples exist from the beginning of the 18th century and even earlier. As well, there are dozens of examples of multi-barreled rifles from the same time period - combining several barrels into a single stock was an almost immediate innovation in firearms. I've seen a number of such weapons in museums.So it's hardly the case that the concept of a multi-shot weapon was foreign to the framers of the Second Amendment. I don't know how you prove what someone now dead wasn't able to conceive of, but I'm pretty sure you can't do it by falsely asserting the non-existence of things that did, actually, exist at the time.And it's easy to grab handfuls of tech that the Founding fathers might not have thought of, like the xerox machine or desktop publishing - but then again, Thomas Jefferson invented a device that made four copies of a letter as you wrote it. So many things we now have that seem inconceivable to the 18th-century mind are really just refinements of technologies and modalities that they already had. Jefferson might not have understood how the xerox machine works but he would have had no trouble understanding what it did; but is that much different than how you understand the xerox machine? No one is stopping it. You simply have to pass an amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, and then amend 44 individual state constitutions, and then you can pass whatever laws you like (that are consistent with the rest of the Constitution.)Believe it or not, though, the things you want to do are not so obvious that they have universal consensus. You're going to have to be far more convincing than you have been if you expect to pass 45 individual amendments.

That is a damning argument against the Constitution.

Self-defense. When seconds count, you need the gun to fire as soon as you pull the trigger, not after several seconds or minutes of tedious loading. "Freeze, buster! Oh, wait, hang on a second, now where did I put that powder horn..." The Bushmaster .223 is a hunting rifle.

.Pass a law that makes you culpable if your firearm is used in a crime.. There are too many guns already on the street. So just put a end to the manufacture of ammo for any assault type weapons.. Go back to a ban on assault weapons and high capacity mags.. Hire a armed security guard for schools with the training and capability to neutralize any armed threat.I realize these points are simplistic politically unfeasiable and probably just plain impossible. But, any of these above points worth consideration? I mean we have to do something.

The thing I find fascinating about this discussion by the American people at large is the lack of out cry when other constitutional rights were removed.1st Amendment
We now have first amendment zones in this country4th Amendment
Slowly been chipped away for years, but the Patriot Act completely eviscerated this amendment. All that needs to be made is a claim of national Security and law enforcement has very few limits on searches.
National Security Letters
Current laws do not adhere to the 4th amendment.But when it comes to guns, people scream to high heaven that their Constitutional Rights are being oppressed.The way to stop the tyranny of government is not through guns, but through demanding our 1st and 4th amendment rights.

You seemingly know nothing about guns. A semi auto will not get off a first shot any quicker than a revolver or a single shot. All the semi auto will give you is more shots before reloading. "powder horn? Aren't you tired of strawmen yet?This whole self defense thing is just a deflection. How often do we hear about mindless slaughter as opposed to someone actually using a gun in self defense? Self defense with a gun is not like in the movies, There are rarely multiple rounds going back and forth. Like hunting if you are not sure of your target and not confident a shot will hit, do not take the shot. Mr Semantics strikes again. Lets make an accurate statement. it can be used as a hunting rifle. Its original design was not as a hunting rifle.
As an avid hunter, I find people that bring 20-30 round clips hunting offensive and disgusting. You can only shoot 1-2 deer and how many prairie dogs do you really need to shoot at one time? If you can't drop a deer with one shot you shouldn't take the shot.Rifles like this are terrible hunting rifles. They are not designed to be MOA accurate. They are designed tho throw as much lead as quick as possible. If you read the reviews by people that shoot them they think hitting a 12" target at 300 yards is good accuracy. I good hunting rifle should be accurate within 6" at 300 yards.

I'm sorry but the logic of your post escapes me.

Agreed Difficult to define. .223 and 556(they are not actually the same round) can be used in hunting rifles. Might be able to justify a ban on 556 as that is actually a military round. I can see a lot of confusion and push back on this. Agreed. If not an outright ban then regulation of how bought and how stored. We can't people to pay for teachers. How we going to convince them to do this.I think the first step is complete registration of all handguns and assault style weapons. The defining of assault weapons is challenging but I think we can come to a national consensus on what the term means and what needs to be registered.No where in the Constitution is there anything to say these can not be regulated to this extent. If you don't want to register your weapons suffer the consequences.

The wording is "bear arms" not own arms. If they meant personal ownership why did they not state that?

They did: its "keep and bear arms".

It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state.The 2nd Amendment is there so that the People, as individuals, will have arms so that a militia can become organized if need be. Your link says that the National Guard is a subset of the militia. The Supreme Court said its an individual right.