You Want the 2nd Amendment? ok.

[titaniumsalute]

Let's allow people to have all guns available from the late 1700s. Muskets, black powder, etc. Win win.

[bossy22]

1. does that apply to the 1st amendment as well

so the internet, TV, Radio are all okay to place under strict censorship right?

[kestrel91316]

4. Modern words are not more OR less lethal than 18th century words.

They aren't lethal at all when used as intended.

False equivalency FAIL.

[bossy22]

9. neither are modern forms of fast moving metal objects

the truth is that the modern word can have a much greater affect then back in the 18th century. Back in those times your words would only travel as far as you could yell (assuming you weren't wealthy enough to afford a printing press). Today, your words can rich billions which means ideas can spread much more quickly- good and BAD. Don't think so? Just look at the arab spring which pretty much started from nothing and was a full blown uprising in less than a few months.

[kestrel91316]

13. Words can be "lethal" weapons, but only figuratively. False equivalency stands.

[titaniumsalute]

12. We do censor TV, internet, etc.

Say FuCK on network TV...show a nipple during a Superbowl...try to look up anything regarding sex on the internet at a library. All censored.

[Berserker]

2. Lets go

back to the printing press and gas lamps. Win Win.

[kestrel91316]

6. Words are not guns. They do not directly kill. Do you maintain that they do?????

[former9thward]

16. Of course they can kill.

Inciting statements by demagogues can be spread to millions in an instant. In the late 1700s it took a long time to spread information to people. So if you want to go there then let's censor anything not produced by 1700s printing presses. Of course since YOU are posting on the internet YOU will oppose that because it might affect YOU.

[kestrel91316]

18. Words cannot literally kill. You are insane.

People might be incited, as we saw in Uganda, but those words, while reprehensible, did not kill. Humans with machetes killed.

There is ZERO equivalency between speech and guns.

[former9thward]

20. Instead of coming up with silly interpretations why don't you be honest?

Advocate the elimination of the 2nd amendment and be done with it. At least that would be an honest approach. Name me a legal scholar who has your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. When the only people giving such opinions are anonymous posters on the internet it says something.

[ThePhilosopher04]

3. I've been saying that for years ...

if they want to adhere to strict construction of the constitution, black powder rifles it is.

[Hoyt]

5. Those who can't venture out without a gun in their pants will respond with BS.

[BlueStreak]

7. As a serious matter, the founders could not haveenvisioned the progress of arms

They only knew muskets. They most certainly would not agree with an individual owning a nuclear bomb, for example. There was no reason at the time for them to be more specific about the weapons because muskets and single-shot pistols were all they knew. There could be no question they would not agree with an individual's right to own a drone capable of launching missiles on one's neighbors. I doubt that any of them would approve of street sweepers on their "semi-automatic" cousins. We can't even say if they would approve of the revolver, although a few of the founders might have still been alive when the revolver came into being.

It is a reduction to absurdity to say that because they wanted citizens to be prepared to assemble a well-regulated militia with muskets at the ready, they would also be in favor of every other possible weapon. That whole notion is complete nonsense.

[byeya]

11. It's hard to believe the Big Lie endlessly repeated would result in the Supreme's Filty Five

unleashing a flood of anti-civil society rulings and one of two major political parties being dedicated to nothing but obstructionism.

[atreides1]

8. Too Late for that

And it's kind of a stupid thing to insist on.

[-..__...]

10. Hey... there's an idea!!!

[Lady Freedom Returns]

14. black powder?

I see a very bad thing about that. Large drums full bad.
We will need to do some regs on the amount one can buy I think.

[Proud Public Servant]

15. Let's make it even simpler

Own a gun? Congratulations! You are now part of a "well-regulated militia." See you in Afghanistan...

[Dems to Win]

17. Wow, I like this idea. Let's do it

[Lady Freedom Returns]

19. That would make my husband's day. Let me explain.

He is a 8 year Marine, retired (note: Never call a Marine ex). He has been wanting to get back in ever since he saw that ages of the dead solders."I have lived a dame good life! They deserved the same!" he says every time he sees a new post of names and ages. When the shooting was being reported, he could not stop crying.I think it is that protective streak that those of the armed forces have, it was/is killing him about the whole thing.
He is 56 years old now, so if that would be a way back in, he would go get a gun tomorrow. The pain of not being able to do something to protect this country and the children of this country, is hurting him something bad.
He does things for the community and single individuals to try and make a difference, but then he sees all these things...
I don't know what hurts me more, the violence of what has happened , or watch his heart get such a beating from it.

I also think of those guys coming home. They will see all the hurt that is going on. They will feel pain and the sorrow of that feeling of not being able to do something. It makes me cry some more.

We need gun control and mental health reform. We need to have a country that does not cause these guys to feel that they have done nothing. That the children are safe, that this country is one you can go down the streets knowing you will not be shoot at. That it is NOT a war zone.

Sorry for the rant, sorta.