Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[RumTumTugger]

So I guess the First Amendment doesn't cover conversations over telephones, news broadcast over TV and radio, or anything over the internet since they weren't around then

Further it was the near universal understanding up until the 20th century that the militia meant the people -- the citizens. I'll be delighted to go over that one again

Please do not for JimL and his cohorts but for those who want to learn the facts.

[Sparko]

It's a combination between a gun and a sheild.

and a baby?

maxresdefault.jpg

[TheWall]

and a baby?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24307[/ATTACH]

You have never heard that before? Like how an Arnold Palmer is tea and lemonade deciding to get married.

[Cerebrum123]

Does anybody think that repealing the 2nd Amendment and following up with gun confiscations wouldn't lead to a second Civil War?

I think that divided as the USA is now, doing that would 100% guarantee a civil war.

[Sparko]

I think that divided as the USA is now, doing that would 100% guarantee a civil war.

I think it would more naturally be called a rebellion. because it would be the American people against the US government. You can discount the sheep that go along with turning in their guns because they would not have any guns to fight with.

[Jedidiah]

A well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson

[seer]

You want people to die!

[Joel]

I'm not really concerned with the exact meaning of the Constitution

What I was responding to was your insistence on a particular meaning of a nuanced phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Your response here is tantamount to forfeiting on that debate.

Should the people be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? I don't think anyone of sane mind would agree to that

I think there is a good argument to be made that not even governments should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. I'd be fine with nobody possessing nuclear weapons.
If the people cannot be trusted to possess nuclear weapons, then they cannot be trusted to control a government that possesses nuclear weapons either (they could elect someone worse than Trump!). Any "common sense" regulation of arms for the people should, by common sense, be applied equally to their government, following a reasonable, and prudent, principle that the people, as a whole, ought to be able to arm themselves at least as well as their government. Otherwise we ought to abandon the ideas of a free country, and of self government.

[Zymologist]

You want people to die!

I laugh, because it's funny...then I cry, because this is exactly what political discourse has turned into.

[rogue06]

It's a combination between a gun and a sheild.

They were made by Giovanni Battista of Ravenna consisting of a matchlock (gun) and buckler (small shield) for Henry VIII's personal body guards. Several still exist though scholars debate if they were more decorative or functional since it's difficult to aim while holding a thick shield weighing up to 30 lbs. Of course it could still be used in melee range.

pl9_511414_fnt_bw_c81-2.jpg CEB6upAWEAAKOH6.jpg article-1166382-0437F7B5000005DC-105_306x268.jpg

[Mountain Man]

I think you accidentally posted images from Area 51.

[One Bad Pig]

They were made by Giovanni Battista of Ravenna consisting of a matchlock (gun) and buckler (small shield) for Henry VIII's personal body guards. Several still exist though scholars debate if they were more decorative or functional since it's difficult to aim while holding a thick shield weighing up to 30 lbs. Of course it could still be used in melee range.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24308[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]24309[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]24310[/ATTACH]

Aim is practically immaterial when firing a smoothbore gun anyway. Muskets were only useful for large groups shooting at each other.

[Starlight]

I understand the original historical context of the 2nd Amendment to be slavery - the Slaves States operated the equivalent of a State Guard that patrolled for runaway slaves. There was a fear that the federal government might be effectively able to end slavery via a ban on the States operating such militias, because then in practice the slaves would be able to escape. So the 2nd Amendment bans the Federal government from prohibiting States from operating militias.

One could argue that the ending of slavery means the 2nd Amendment has expired because its original intended purpose is now moot. Or one could argue that its original intended purpose remains: States are constitutionally able to operate a State Guard and the federal government is not allowed to ban such armies.

[seer]

I understand the original historical context of the 2nd Amendment to be slavery - the Slaves States operated the equivalent of a State Guard that patrolled for runaway slaves.

References please.

[seer]

I laugh, because it's funny...then I cry, because this is exactly what political discourse has turned into.

Yep...