SteveR Loc: Michigan

It gives more thought to why we do have the 2nd Amendment, despite the terrible misuse of guns.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yep, the last bastion of defending our liberty now.

Watash

That is exactly why the Marxist Dems are so scared of the 2nd. It's because when it gets down to the wire
"We the People" don't have to put up with their crap!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Look at history of governments taking not just guns but swords etc.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

My travels to Iran told me they have no problems with guns, everyone has several. Iranians can and do shoot each other with impugnity. Shooting weren't covered by the TV media because they were too commonplace.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Steve,
The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with Joe Schmo carrying a gun. It had to do with the States having a well-organized and trained m*****a to defend themselves against aggressors, both foreign and domestic.
The state's m*****as later morphed into the State Guards which still exist today.
If you believe that the writers of the Constitution thought everyone should be carrying a gun wherever they go, you are either misinformed or have derived your own erroneous conclusions based upon your own beliefs.
Further, you need to realize that the Constitution was written in 1789 and it wasn't until 1831 that Colt invented the revolver and the first semi-automatic pistol came along in 1892.
So, if you want to stay true to what the writers had in mind, you should be able to carry a flint-lock pistol.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Although one interpretation of the 2nd amendment may include the formation of a m*****a (multiple individuals) to defend themselves against aggressors, it does not preclude an individual’s right to bear arms to protect themself against an aggressor. But, I don’t imagine they thought that individual needed an automatic weapon for self defense. And I don’t consider it sporting to take a deer down with multiple shots. Our problem has to do with “sick” individuals, which is in my opinion, a result of our society moving away from the knowledge of “right and wrong”: in other words, morals.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

You would have to take into consideration ALL SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd Amendment since. As far as semi-automatic rifles go, if that's what the "aggressors" would use, then isn't that what the defenders would need? My only point is, that the 2nd Amendment was meant to keep us from tyranny. I have made the point before that guns are too often used in ways not sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. When this happens, there should be laws with real teeth. In other word, guns should only be used in certain ways.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You fail the second amendment class I so eloquently put together here on UHH with references proving your stupid comments here as utter nonsense and a lie.
You get an F.
You know absolutely nothing so do not comment and show your total and complete ignorance about the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and particularly the Second Amendment.

pendennis

The basis for the 2nd Amendment came long before there were organized m*****as by the colonies. Self-defense was/is always recognized as an inherent right of free citizens. There are any number of scholarly books written on the subjects, and every time it's mentioned to you, you ignore the advice, and continue to go off on these m*****a/state guard tangents.

The need for a m*****a, among other reasons, was to provide armed forces until an army could be raised by Congress. The various colonial/state m*****a requirements were that the members be armed in the same manner as would be an army. The Founders well knew that technology would advance, and that firearms would advance in manners similar to other tools. In fact, during the War for American Independence, there were already technology changes in the works, among which was the breech-loading rifle, designed by a British officer of Scottish descent. As frequently happens though, technology advancements are frequently put in abeyance for the sake of using what's already there.

And you should be ashamed that you continue to spread the lies about the U.S. Constitution.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

While you are here a village is missing their idjit.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Your fantasy, while admirable from the woke perspective...is just that...a fantasy. You clearly know little about your chosen topic.

Or, do you know better and are you just trolling?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Again,
You lose like an i***t, so need to just attack me rather than worship my brilliance over you regarding the 2nd amendment.
Go back to my classes on the 2nd amendment here on UHH, read them completely, then realize how stupid your lame i***t post here sounds.
The classes are all based on the writings of the founders, ancient writings they referred to common laws, supreme court references etc.
you are wrong as ALWAYS on this subject and that is all that needs to be said except for a humble apology to me for you being so ignorant on the subject and admitting I am right.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

The 2nd grants no rights.
It prevents the government from passing laws that restricts rights every human is born with and already has, the right to defend oneself and family. The preamble to the 2nd describes why this is important to everyone. The reasons the 2nd was written into the constitution are well documented and described in the Federalist Papers. Their intentions are not misunderstood or ambiguous.

Note that the weapons they had at their disposal were the same ones used in every military in the world. Tell me where they mention "musket" or any particular weapon.... You can't. And if you want to take it to that end, Then freedom of speech has no place in electronic media or recorded media except print and un amplified spoken words. Ya gotta print flyers on an ancient letter press, one sheet at a time.

Nice try, but you gotta read it, not shoot from the hip like you v**e.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.