The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

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.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

---

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.

---

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.

I never said they failed.

I'm saying modern times need modern measures. 

Debating about how many different weapons need closer regulation is not what I was getting at - but yes I'm aware of the high capacity magazines available to all types of handguns and rifles (short and long)
 That was not my point. 

I was alluding to keeping that [BLEEP] out of the hands of the wrong people or at least [BLEEP] trying to do that. 
Currently - we are not. Many of the folks responsible for mass shootings in the past ten years have thrown up multiple red flags with their mental health history, their dealings with law enforcement, and for some their documented,blatant, and violent hate-speech. 

Many of them legally acquired weapons after such red flags appeared. 

That ^ is some dumb [BLEEP] we should be making more difficult for the whackos. 

---

As I mentioned in another thread - my brother is a gun dealer. The "big and scary AR" thing you're attempting isn't going anywhere with me. I don't care about Joe-blow's perception of assault rifles. I care about limiting mass shootings.  I've hog hunted with an AR.  (My browning .308 is just as effective and slightly more accurate)

---

The "well regulated militia" was to be a group of people who had weapons, already knew how to use those weapons, who promised to quickly answer the call of whoever would deploy them, and all knew how to work together to win battles with those weapons.

It was inherent that someone would have a list of who had what in terms of not just guns, powder, bullets, but also horses, saddles, stirrups, carts, firewood, shelf stable food, spare boots, etc.  Everyone understood that at the time. Every state had a system like this.  In fact some had multiple ones. Mercenaries were sometimes used when the militia wasn't well regulated enough.  Everyone thought that was bad and to be avoided.

So there was definitely a state-managed registry of who had which weapons.  And the feds got quite a bit of authority over it originally.  Here's article 1 section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So the next question is, can the Feds go down to the people and say, "you can have a gun, but only if it's part of a well regulated militia". The answer to that is emphatically no. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," so the federal government can not do this.

Next question, can a state do it? Originally, yes.  This happened all the time.  It was understood that the governor's man could demand that you and your sons join the posse or at least hand over your weapons for their use if they saw fit.  BUT, starting in the early 20th century, this changed.  Federal courts started saying that the 14th amendment gave them the authority to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.  This was probably not the original intent of the 14th amendment.

Finally we have the issue of technology.  Arms back then were understood to be muskets, rifles, and cannons. No pre assembled rounds, no semi automatic or automatic fire.  Unless you're talking to FSG, everyone thinks it is reasonable that the federal government very strictly regulates private ownership of tanks, airplanes, drones, rockets, bombs and bomb making materials, and fully automatic guns.  Whether that list should include some semi automatic weapons, judges have allowed that based on the original meaning of the 2nd and 14th amendments, but they have also struck some such laws down.

Anyhow, unless you are a federal judge or state judge, your primary concern should be "will this actually prevent crime" and "will people actually comply".  Those are easier questions to answer.  If the feds attempted to tightly restrict ownership of weapons that today are commonly owned and operated by millions of people, it would be a disaster.

---

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.

An AR 15 dispenses more kinetic energy with less recoil than any pistol. Because the gun itself has more mass. This makes it easier to aim and shoot many rounds accurately in many different directions in much less time than any pistol.  It's the ideal weapon for a mass shooting against unarmed targets.

A reasonable regulation could be based on gun weight, or muzzle velocity, or similar characteristics.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

For the record, The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in. the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

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.

I never said they failed.

I'm saying modern times need modern measures. 

Debating about how many different weapons need closer regulation is not what I was getting at - but yes I'm aware of the high capacity magazines available to all types of handguns and rifles (short and long)
 That was not my point. 

I was alluding to keeping that [BLEEP] out of the hands of the wrong people or at least [BLEEP] trying to do that. 
Currently - we are not. Many of the folks responsible for mass shootings in the past ten years have thrown up multiple red flags with their mental health history, their dealings with law enforcement, and for some their documented,blatant, and violent hate-speech. 

Many of them legally acquired weapons after such red flags appeared. 

That ^ is some dumb [BLEEP] we should be making more difficult for the whackos. 

---

As I mentioned in another thread - my brother is a gun dealer. The "big and scary AR" thing you're attempting isn't going anywhere with me. I don't care about Joe-blow's perception of assault rifles. I care about limiting mass shootings.  I've hog hunted with an AR.  (My browning .308 is just as effective and slightly more accurate)

I have zero problems with people losing their right to bear arms, at least for a time, due to mental health reasons. They need to be specific and connected with a propensity for violence. I am not ok with registries or tests for private ownership. I could get on board for tests for open or concealed carry in public.

---

I never said they failed.

I'm saying modern times need modern measures. 

Debating about how many different weapons need closer regulation is not what I was getting at - but yes I'm aware of the high capacity magazines available to all types of handguns and rifles (short and long)
 That was not my point. 

I was alluding to keeping that [BLEEP] out of the hands of the wrong people or at least [BLEEP] trying to do that. 
Currently - we are not. Many of the folks responsible for mass shootings in the past ten years have thrown up multiple red flags with their mental health history, their dealings with law enforcement, and for some their documented,blatant, and violent hate-speech. 

Many of them legally acquired weapons after such red flags appeared. 

That ^ is some dumb [BLEEP] we should be making more difficult for the whackos. 

---

As I mentioned in another thread - my brother is a gun dealer. The "big and scary AR" thing you're attempting isn't going anywhere with me. I don't care about Joe-blow's perception of assault rifles. I care about limiting mass shootings.  I've hog hunted with an AR.  (My browning .308 is just as effective and slightly more accurate)

I have zero problems with people losing their right to bear arms, at least for a time, due to mental health reasons. They need to be specific and connected with a propensity for violence. I am not ok with registries or tests for private ownership. I could get on board for tests for open or concealed carry in public.

I mostly agree.
Concealed carry should be automatic.  If you can own it, you should be allowed to carry it concealed.
Open carry permits should be very hard to get, basically only for private security guards.
Anyone who makes specific threats online or who un-conceals their gun in public for no good reason should have their guns taken away temporarily.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just mean that I am not a fan of people who get concealed permits and don't know how to use the weapon. A gun is dangerous. I am open to the idea of there needing a "license" to carry one in public. That said, I don't know how to separate that from big brother. Maybe split the difference and make it a militia license? It cannot be denied or removed unless there is an open threat or call of violence.

---

I just mean that I am not a fan of people who get concealed permits and don't know how to use the weapon. A gun is dangerous. I am open to the idea of there needing a "license" to carry one in public. That said, I don't know how to separate that from big brother. Maybe split the difference and make it a militia license? It cannot be denied or removed unless there is an open threat or call of violence.

There should be a norm that most gun stores have a firing range and lessons are included with your purchase.  Some stores have ranges and all ranges offer lessons. But I don't know how to enforce that people actually buy the range time and the lesson. In theory the concealed carry permit enforces that, but like most state mandates classes, there is a race to the bottom to minimal content and minimal cost.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just mean that I am not a fan of people who get concealed permits and don't know how to use the weapon. A gun is dangerous. I am open to the idea of there needing a "license" to carry one in public. That said, I don't know how to separate that from big brother. Maybe split the difference and make it a militia license? It cannot be denied or removed unless there is an open threat or call of violence.

There should be a norm that most gun stores have a firing range and lessons are included with your purchase.  Some stores have ranges and all ranges offer lessons. But I don't know how to enforce that people actually buy the range time and the lesson. In theory the concealed carry permit enforces that, but like most state mandates classes, there is a race to the bottom to minimal content and minimal cost.

A friend of mine purchased 6 guns it the last 6 months, none were bought in a store.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There should be a norm that most gun stores have a firing range and lessons are included with your purchase.  Some stores have ranges and all ranges offer lessons. But I don't know how to enforce that people actually buy the range time and the lesson. In theory the concealed carry permit enforces that, but like most state mandates classes, there is a race to the bottom to minimal content and minimal cost.

A friend of mine purchased 6 guns it the last 6 months, none were bought in a store.

I'm sure he's confident he can figure out how to load and fire those correctly and safely without discussing it with anyone.

Hope he's right!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's not rocket science. My comment was directed at the unfamiliar. Know general principles, concepts and tactics that are useful for yourself and others in self defense situations. Everything else is relatively transferable.

---