What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

Guns empower people. They allow people to be able to defend themselves; they allow you to sleep comfortably with your Glock under your pillow just in case.

But they also empower people differently- to the small minority it gives them killing power- the ability to kill many people. James Holmes was one of them.

James Holmes grew up playing violent video games, which only got better and more realistic as he grew up. And after he turned 18, he started buying guns, and a few years later- well- we all know what this loser did.

To rationalize this, I thought about it 500 years from now- what gun control measures would be in effect if any.

I came up with two diametric futures:

In future one, bared arms are not regulated, although the illegal use of them is severely punished.

In future two, firearms are rare and hard to get and only those with a real need to have one gets one sometimes.

But then it occurred to me that our "right to bear arms" is a vague statement.

No one goes hunting with a handgun and very few can pull off a killing spree with a rifle. A gun is used to kill other people up close and a rifle is used to kill game far away. So where does that leave us Constitutionally?

Does our right to bear arms include handguns which were a novelty weapon at that time and machine guns which didn't exist back then? Or did the framers mean RIFLES, which 90% of all firearms back then were?

 

The single most ignored phrase in the constitution is "a well regulated militia". The American peole do have the right to bear arms for self defense, hunting, target shooting and collecting as historical artifacts. But no one should have the right to bear a howitzer or a flame thrower or a grenade launcher or an automatic weapon in any configuation. Those arms belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Some maintain that the citizen's right to bear arms is a measure aloowing citizens to openly resist the will of the state. I question the rationale there.

 

So would you agree that there should be different laws for GUNS and RIFLES, as they are two different things? Because I can easily deal with that.

 

"Handguns are made for killing, they ain't good for nuthin' else," so they say. But handguns are very common in hunting circles.




Also Jared Loechner, the Zodiac Killer, and many others have used a handgun to mow down several people in their killing sprees.

Look at the Militia Act of 1792 to see that many of the same Founders demanded that pistols be carried by certain units. American military leaders have traditionally wanted the best and latest tech for their troops, wheather regular or militia. Kentucky flintlock rifles were the best, latest high-tech rifles commonly available at the time. So yes, the Founders would have wanted every law-abiding citizens to have full-auto AR rifles with holographic scopes if they were magically invented at that time.

 

Concealable weapons can be a menace, particularly if those weapons are equipped with high capacity magazines. These weapons were designed to commit crimes.

 

I deer hunt with a handgun.

 

Handguns are made for close-range killing, which never occurs in nature... you can never get that close to a deer.

Well this falls into the statistical categories... the minority that use them for killing people. It will always exist.

So there should be an AK-47 in every house???!!!

 

Prove it, liar.

 

Once again it boils down to INTENT. A handgun kills up close and a rifle kills from far away. Handguns are made for killing people up close (as you can never get that close to wild game) and a rifle is made for hunting game.

Let's all own up to reality here and admit that handguns are meant for self-protection, not hunting.

 

Your point is moot.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...ar/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made

 

Nope. I suggest actually hunting before acting like an authority on the subject.

 

I use a custom made thompson center contender in 7mm whisper, or a 6.5 JDJ(a variation of the 6.5 grendel). Both are made by J.D. Jones in Wintersville Ohio............http://sskindustries.com/contender

I've also used a 44mag, as well as a 357 mag.

call me a liar again, and you'll be reported.

 

Anyone who hunts deer knows different. I've had them walk up 5 yards away to me from behind and grunt at me. Anyone who hunts with a bow (usally from a tree stand) will be within handgun range. I'd avoid grandiose statements before doing research.

[/Quote]So there should be an AK-47 in every house???!!![/QUOTE]

Only for those who want them. And of course no firarms for any violent felons, illegal aliens, or homes with either living there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr2IG6t85Jg

Hunting elk with a Glock.

Does jmpet have anything more to say on the issue?

 

For all the pro gun people on this forum, here's why you need to stop talking about taking up arms to stop intrusive government and why you need to take ACTION:

[video=youtube;IqS2vzdUzKw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqS2vzdUzKw&list=PL52C80301F5DEBEF1&index=1&feature=plpp_video[/video]


How many of you pro gun people are going after those cops in order to defend the Constitution and to get revenge?

 

Um, how you say...

PWNED

 

Well honestly, like Im a deer hunter but i've seen deer so close you could hit them with a rock.

And when I did get talked into going deer hunting we sat in a blind, in a tree and these deer just kept walking by right under us. i could have poured my coffee down on one!

 

Yeah, they were a bit rough.

In the 60's the black panthers would show up with LOADED guns to watch arrests to make sure the cops did the right thing. That was EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment was about.

And now cops can take you to jail for filming the incident. Now THAT we have to stop.

And there is no "revenge" clause in the 2nd amendment.

It is ALL about tyranny. And being able to resist it.

 

The right to bear arms has been very limited since the Massachusetts Shay Regulators were gunned down for trying to regulate their public servants.

Then, George Washington gunned down some and hanged others who refused to pay a tax on their corn crops.

Then, Communist A. Lincoln waged a very un-civil war against the Southern States to eliminate their rights too.

FD Roosevelt further diminished "self defense" rights.

What we have left is a privilege, that can be taken away anytime the geniuses in Congress want to.

 

I was unaware that the South had the right to enslave people.

 

you realize of course that a new amendment would need to be passed in order to "take away" the second amendment right?

 

The gun control crowd often seems to argue from ignorance and emotion.

During the last 20 years, carry and conceal carry has been passed by all but one State, Illinois yet crime nationwide decreased during that time. You can see how well disarming law abiding citizens works out in Chicago.

Handguns are not the preferred weapon for self defense. Never use a handgun when you can use a rifle. Hard to carry a rifle around everyday so a handgun will do.

No doubt the gun control crowd will not stop their campaign to disarm law abiding citizens.

 

Yes- MOST hunting is done with rifles in the deep forest. The minority- the small minority- of hunters are foolish enough to think a deer's gonna walk up on 'em and snort. The rest have rifles and kill with one shot at a distance.

 

Dude, you got pwned.

 

Handgun hunting is very popular in my state. Our laws do not allow rifle cartridges for deer hunting so rifles have to fire handgun cartridges. Dude, do some research.

A 44 magnum is a minimum handgun cartridge to use in a handgun as backup in bear country.