Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Terraceth]

Wrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.

That is true. That is why an amendment process exists and why the Constitution has been amended multiple times to try to fix oversights. If there is an issue with the Constitution, then change it with an Amendment.

It is still fallible men that are making the determination for the rest of us that owning guns is a natural right.

They did not make the determination it was a natural right. They made it a legal right. It may or may not be a natural right, which is a more abstract concept, but the people who wrote the Constitution were not out to decide what were natural rights, but rather what were legal rights.

Though, for the record, the original framers did not the determination that owning guns was a legal right for everyone, simply that the federal government couldn't infringe upon the right to bear arms, as the Bill of Rights was to apply only to the federal government. It was not until the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights started restricting the actions of states.

Again, what makes a right, a natural right?

An interesting philosophical question that is largely irrelevant to the issue of the second amendment.

[JimL]

The Founding Fathers had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

Similarly, they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.

We're not talking about free speech, we are talking weapons of mass destruction. The Las Vegas mad man murdered and put nearly 600 people in the hospital in a matter of minutes. Thats a war zone. Maybe thats the kind of country you want to live and raise your children in, but a lot of us disagree with you and are trying to do something about it.

[TheWall]

The Founding Fathers had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

Similarly, they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.

Puckle gun was made years before the constition. Warfare is always adapting and with it arms. Even hand to hand combat develops over time for instance Judo was designed to deal with armored and stronger opponents by taking them to the ground and wrestling which also happened in places like medeival germany where half swording hammers rondell daggers and wrestling was how one countered armored warriors.

[Mountain Man]

Trick question: It doesn't. It determines what legal rights there are. And the Constitution quite clearly establishes a legal right for guns that it does not establish for cars.

Not quite. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to place limits on government. It doesn't grant citizens their rights; rather, it explicitly prohibits the government from infringing on rights that citizens naturally posses, and one of those is the right to self-defense through the keeping and bearing of arms, which includes more than just guns. Your right to carry a knife, for instance, is also protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[JimL]

That is true. That is why an amendment process exists and why the Constitution has been amended multiple times to try to fix oversights. If there is an issue with the Constitution, then change it with an Amendment.

Not necessary, we already regulate firearms, we are not trying to ban them.

They did not make the determination it was a natural right. They made it a legal right. It may or may not be a natural right, which is a more abstract concept, but the people who wrote the Constitution were not out to decide what were natural rights, but rather what were legal rights.

They had to make the determination, prior to making it legal.

An interesting philosophical question that is largely irrelevant to the issue of the second amendment.

Ah but it is relevant, because we can't assume that the founders meant gun ownership to be seen as a natural right, without reason. They made it a legal right yes, but that gun ownership was already the norm doesn't make it a natural right which is how I read some peoples interpretations here of the 2nd amendment.

[Sea of red]

The Founding Fathers had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

Similarly, they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.

Literally everything you just listed are tightly regulated industries.

[Sea of red]

The Founders did not care what weapons might exist in the 21st century. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, whatever those might be.

The Constitution is indeed not written in stone - that is why there is an amendment process. Let's follow it, shall we?

The country didn't have a military when the constitution was framed, so guns rights were defended in the context of the need for a militia to fight against foreign governments. That militia has been maintained through the state National Guards, and we now have a gorilla of a federal military, and the courts have ruled it well within the founders intentions to regulate firearms going forward.

The idea that machine guns, stinger missiles, bazookas, rocket launchers, and explosives shouldn't be regulated/prohibited is just flat out retarded.

[Tassman]

You are using a different definition of "mass shooting" for Australia (four or more killed) than you are for the US (four or more injured).

both Australia and the UShttp://www.politifact.com/california...-does-it-mean/

AND: "The United States' Congressional Research Service...defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

Your comparison is worthless. Continuing to use it is dishonest, and counter-productive.

I disagree. Your point is trivial and irrelevant.

[Jedidiah]

Wrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.

The founders had no way to know what was coming in any area. They set limits to the government to protect freedom and allow "the people" rather than government to decide what was best for them.

[Jedidiah]

The country didn't have a military when the constitution was framed, so guns rights were defended in the context of the need for a militia to fight against foreign governments. That militia has been maintained through the state National Guards, and we now have a gorilla of a federal military, and the courts have ruled it well within the founders intentions to regulate firearms going forward.

The idea that machine guns, stinger missiles, bazookas, rocket launchers, and explosives shouldn't be regulated/prohibited is just flat out retarded.

The idea that we can trust and rely on the U.S. military and the state Guards is what is retarded.

[Roy]

This is sorta a non sequitur. It may limit gun violence (as opposed to other violence), but at what cost? Was Germany a first world nation in the '30s?

No. No-one was, since the terms weren't used until the late 1940s, and were defined based on post-war international organisations and alliances.

[lilpixieofterror]

We're not talking about free speech, we are talking weapons of mass destruction. The Las Vegas mad man murdered and put nearly 600 people in the hospital in a matter of minutes. Thats a war zone. Maybe thats the kind of country you want to live and raise your children in, but a lot of us disagree with you and are trying to do something about it.

[lilpixieofterror]

The country didn't have a military when the constitution was framed, so guns rights were defended in the context of the need for a militia to fight against foreign governments. That militia has been maintained through the state National Guards, and we now have a gorilla of a federal military, and the courts have ruled it well within the founders intentions to regulate firearms going forward.

The idea that machine guns, stinger missiles, bazookas, rocket launchers, and explosives shouldn't be regulated/prohibited is just flat out retarded.

Umm, The First American Regiment formed in 1784, 5 years before the constitution was written. Article ll, section ll makes the president the commander in chief of the army and navy. I suggest you read the federalist papers 29 and 46 being the most relevant to this issue.

[Adrift]

I've always found it interesting how some insist on limiting things to just "first world nations" in this discussion. It almost sounds like they want to limit comparisons due to cherry picking or worse that they think people in non-first world nations are different and don't count.

I don't see what's so mysterious about comparing first world nations. One would think that first world nations typically have more in common than they do with non-first world nations especially concerning factors that might lead to the prevalence of crime in a nation which would include things like economics and the the ability of law enforcement to do their job, and to do it with some sort of integrity.

[Roy]

I disagree. Your point is trivial and irrelevant.

Demonstrating that your underlying claim

is dishonest garbage is neither trivial nor irrelevant.