Do have a VALID argument of why 2A's ESSENCE doesn't apply TODAY? Or is it just a hunch/feeling?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

With the Militia and being defined in DC vs Heller as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

"well regulated" has always struck me funny in this day and age.

-this gun owner

I don't see how you could put in new rules for all that would not limit people arming themselves as they desire?? Are you suggesting an exemption for certain 'qualified' people that would allow them to avoid any mass restrictions?



I think it is more the slippery slope arguements. The belief (or pushed self serving view) that as soon as one concession is given the line will be pushed ever inward so we must fight against any and all.


I don't want to dig in to the stats but I think most handgun deaths are between criminals, or in the commencement of crime and then suicides.

Most average families, rightly or wrong are not overly worried about those. Sure you can be the reverse lottery winners but overall they are not perceived as a big risk.

The idea of a kid with an AR walking into a school or an adult targeting people at a concert is chilling as the odds of escaping your reverse lottery moment drop precipitously.

I think the US now has 20MM AR's or there abouts floating about and that number is climbing rapidly.

I think a straight line will correlation will emerge that the more likely a home is to have an AR, the more likely that same home is to spawn a school shooter.

I think over the next decade that is going to bare out with grotesque growth in the death rate in school shootings. Right now I think it is about one death on average per school shooting incident and soon that will move up to double digits on average. Many more 10+ and 20+ kids dead.

hope I am wrong but i suspect I am not and that correlation will be the reason why.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..."

That is the key imo.

Fine any male physically capable of acting in the common defense can bear arms. The arms they can bear are handguns, crossbows, bow and arrows, etc. The arms they cannot own are tactical missiles, bombs (including nukes), chemical weapons, and AR's , etc.

So we already know that the 'right to bear arms' does not mean any arms a person would want. There are plenty of 'arms' prohibited rightly by law. to infringe your right to own a nuke is not the same as infringing your right to bear arms.

So we should agree then that the State could prohibit AR's with no issue, without it breaching the constitution.

If AR's are included, are all semi-auto rifles included? If not, why?

Ignorant leftists always try and create false dichotomies. "YoU CaN't OwN a GrEnAdE!"

The line was drawn long ago on automatic weapons. Stop playing dumb and pretending there isn't one.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it pertained to an infantryman's rifle. At the time of the constitution was written, there were actually what you ignorant buffons would call "AsSaUlT rIfLeS".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle


No way the founders could have anticipated technological advancements. No way!!!






Scary rifles!!! (Most of those were from .22 lr, by the way)

Dare I ask NutPeddlers thoughts on the parents of the most recent school shooter being charged?

My point stands and nothing you wrote refutes.

A line being drawn by court is not the same as a Constitutional prohibition.

The constitution does not suggest 'all arms' must be allowed and thus some lines are always drawn. That is my point. Choice and different judges will draw different lines.

Well, they were morons who illegally let their child access a gun. It makes sense.








More importantly, there were tons of red flags on social media, to which law enforcement couldn't respond to, most likely due to limited resources and/or fear of repercussions (thanks Democrats).

While we're on the topic of LANGUAGE, does the First Amendment explicitly state that all channels must be allowed?

i don't know all the details if those parents are guilty or not, but something seems real fishy about the school. then the prosecutor telling the media they might arrest the parents for two days but the police weren't watching them.

seems real fishy like there is an effort to deflect blame from the school. what kind of teachers or school administrators would send that kid back into class after all that? then they want to blame only the parents? we got suspended from school for throwing punches when i was a kid. they didn't ask our parents they just told our parents what was going to happen. this school just sent the kid back into class wtf?

Please detail the logic that holds "arms one can bear" are handguns, crossbows but not an AR15.
You're either about to do some spectacular mental gymnastics, or will soon reveal you're legitimately ******ed.

This is a real thing in the RKBA world. Fudds, who support controlling/limiting firearms they, personally, do not own.
At the end of the day, most people operate in basic self-interest, very VERY few operate on (in spite of talking a big game about) some carefully sussed-out idealogical premise.

The bottom line with guns in the US is a matter of scale.
The scale of gun ownership in this country is utterly incomprable to anywhere else, ergo all arguments about 'controlling' themby comparing Japan to the US are likewise incomprable.

320,000,000 firearms, (essentially) all of them "unregistered" (contrary to the dialog in 1980's New York City based TV cop shows), they're an existential part of our reality. Write whatever law you want on a sheet of paper, they're not going anywhere and there are enough committed gun owners that legislating them into a criminal class would cause serious social upheval.

The pain of banning them all would be worse than the pain of dealing with them. That's one part of the equation that anti gun rights people never want to square up with.
There are enough gun owners in the US that even if 99% complied with a blanket ban, the 1% of 1% on the fringes willing to do something about it are great enough in number that it would be... "interesting" ... to put it mildly. The upside is that those people probably wouldn't be targeting schools for retribution, so there's that... and a highly relevant X factor is that the police in the United States trend towards being Pro RKBA, you'd have major problems enforcing it. Many simply wouldn't... and I don't think the lesbian cat ladies, cardigan sweater wearing vegan hipsters with the black frame glasses or blue haired crystal worshipping college students who are the loudest anti gun rights proponents will be handling any of the 'round-up' themselves.

the logic is that 'arms' clearly does not mean 'any and all arms' or you could carry a rocket launcher.

That is clear and indisputeable logic.

So it does not mean you CAN bear handguns, crossbows but not AR15's ... and what it does mean is it is discretionary. That the State can, does and will decide.

Isn't it interesting how it always comes down to a threat of saying don't try to pass a law to make people safer as a percent of gun owners might kill you for that proving they are the very people who should be prohobited from owning guns.

This LOLOL guy's stereotyping game is on point. I like it.

There is never an enough good reason to convince a redneck , even with science empirical data in many societal disagreements, not just guns …

something about this thing with the parents doesnt make sense

police say they are on the run now. but the lawyers said the parents went out of town and will return. i dont think any lawyer is going to risk their career and charges to lie about something like that. plus communication could be traced. doesn't add up

then combined with the media war the prosecutor waged against the parents for two days. but no police watching them. someone correct me if i'm wrong but this is not how law enforcement usually works

With that line of thinking , mind as well stop fighting Iran and North Korea to gain nuclear weapons since the used of those are practically inexistant too.

The amount of damages is irrelevant right ?

The liberal mind, where the entire world is entitled to the rights and privileges America has earned. Also, nevermind they're brutal dictatorships.

Lol ?
Wtf are you talking about ?

Earn what and how ?

any lawyers or police here? seriously what is going on with the prosecutor and the parents? there seems like some prosecutorial misconduct going on here not to mention a total cluster**** coordinating with police

Yeah, it's hard to argue with someone who unironically equates recreational gun sports with despotism.

The countless wars America's fought and won? Revolutionary war? Civil War? World Wars?

What does dictatorships have anything to do ?
You don’t care about any restrictions about guns right ?
Regardless if the owners is mentally disturbed right ?

Dictator or brain dead is the same thing .