---

(02-12-2024, 11:46 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(02-12-2024, 10:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

What's the difference in your scenario between an AR-15 and any one of a hundred semi-auto handguns, other than the fact the assault rifle is big and scary looking?  There is a mental health crisis spreading throughout the country and restrictions on firearms will not solve the underlying problem.  

The simple fact is it's impossible for us to know the full intent of the Founders and even if we did, is strict unwavering adherence the solution or a path to self-destruction? 

I don't believe it's fair to suggest they failed.  There's obviously no way they could have envisioned the world we live in today and crafted language to deal with burgeoning technology and social changes that wouldn't be seen for more than two hundred years.

It's not impossible to understand their intent. We have transcripts of their conversations. We just need to read them. NYC suggests I'm "interpreting" them. You're suggesting we can't understand their intent. We can literally go back and read their debates. They wrote them down. The second amendment is the part to which they all agreed. 

We start having to interpret once we move passed weaponry and modern scenarios they wouldn't have been able to comprehend, though I think most of them would think more like FSG than the average lefty today, but that's just my opinion.

My stance is that the government shouldn't be able to restrict any weapon that isn't standard issue to military personnel in the army, as that is definitely in line with what the constitutions says. After that, we start interpreting.

---