Sensible Gun Safety

[NattyBohChamps04]

Those pesky Republicans playing the long con - prosecuting Hunter Biden to take away your god-given 2a rights!

Would make for a great movie.

[njbill]

Who is more dangerous in possession of a gun? Hunter Biden or Kristi Noem?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Other than blacked out license plates, what’s the problem?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/us/new-y ... index.html

[NattyBohChamps04]

Sandy Hook survivors graduate from high school

Alex Jones cries before agreeing to liquidate assets to pay Sandy Hook families

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sandy Hook survivors graduate from high school

Alex Jones cries before agreeing to liquidate assets to pay Sandy Hook families

I will never forget that day.

[DMac]

Get yourself a gun and bump stock, the militia needs you to be ready and well armed.
2A, baby.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... 18e8&ei=11

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

[Seacoaster(1)]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

[DMac]

Oh, it is about the militia, Waffle, it's all about the militia.
Damn near every nut out there needs to have a gun or dozen
and be ready to take on the government and its army when
they come to demand subordination and obedience...oh, and
to grab all your guns too.
2A, baby, and don't let anyone tell you any different. You were
born with the right to have/own a gun.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Get yourself a gun and bump stock, the militia needs you to be ready and well armed.
2A, baby.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... 18e8&ei=11

In a loss for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, is unlawful.

Gotta love the media. The Trump administration instituted this ban.

[cradleandshoot]

Those pesky Republicans playing the long con - prosecuting Hunter Biden to take away your god-given 2a rights!

Would make for a great movie.

I thought the meat and potatoes of this issue was Hunter lying on a federal form to illegally obtain a handgun. No long con here chum, Hunter could have accepted responsibility for his error in judgement and plead guilty at any point in time that he chose to do so. I guess that is not an option most people especially forum members ever considered.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Get yourself a gun and bump stock, the militia needs you to be ready and well armed.
2A, baby.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... 18e8&ei=11

In a loss for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, is unlawful.

Gotta love the media. The Trump administration instituted this ban.

The Post got it right:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... n-cargill/

Headline: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era federal ban on bump stock devices"

[NattyBohChamps04]

Those pesky Republicans playing the long con - prosecuting Hunter Biden to take away your god-given 2a rights!

Would make for a great movie.

I thought the meat and potatoes of this issue was Hunter lying on a federal form to illegally obtain a handgun. No long con here chum, Hunter could have accepted responsibility for his error in judgement and plead guilty at any point in time that he chose to do so. I guess that is not an option most people especially forum members ever considered.

Yes, that's the meat and potatoes of the gun portion. Hunter lied & got caught.

We weren't discussing that part of it though - YA said "Legal question: Does anyone think that the Hunter Biden gun conviction trial and verdict, is really a national advertisement of what we can do to all the 2A gun owners? Not entirely intentionally, but a secondary repercussions?"

There are right wing conspiracies saying the Biden Justice Department went after Hunter on this issue (which is virtually never prosecuted) in order to set the precedent of taking guns away from people and locking them up.

My point was that it was Republicans who were prosecuting Hunter, so it would be Republicans taking away their rights.

[cradleandshoot]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

[cradleandshoot]

Get yourself a gun and bump stock, the militia needs you to be ready and well armed.
2A, baby.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... 18e8&ei=11

In a loss for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, is unlawful.

Gotta love the media. The Trump administration instituted this ban.

The Post got it right:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... n-cargill/

Headline: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era federal ban on bump stock devices"

I probably should hesitate to post this given the number of unstable people in the world. There is a fairly simple process to convert an M1 Garand to full automatic. The downside is the rifle becomes totally uncontrollable and will rapidly pump out 8 rounds with almost no way of targeting any object. My old man said some of the dogfaces he served with experimented with this conversion. Full auto with no control of the weapon is a bad thing. If your stupid none of that matters.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

Well regulated at the time of the founding documents meant "In good working order. Disciplined". And the second amendment says "arms", not "firearms". Google the Puckle gun. The advances in firearm technology have no bearing on the right. Any more than the internet, digital media, and social media do related to the first amendment in terms of the quill pen and parchment paper of that era.

And as we all know, any snarky uses of militia in suggesting the second amendment was only a collective right will be referred to detention for a studious and sincere review with Mr. Hand of the founding documents (precursors, documents themselves, and immediate post establishment documents) until clarity is achieved. Modern era post-1970 revisionist second amendment scholarly gymnastics, even by the likes of Warren Burger, will result in further demerits and detention. And missing out on Pheobe Cates getting out of the pool in her red bikini.

The duck analogy above is wishful thinking by someone who's knowledge of semiautomatic firearm mechanics and function could fit on the head of a pin. Lots of emotional responses today in the partisan political dumpster fire that is the American discourse on guns.

David Yamane. Gun curious. Great read.

Enjoy the weekend, gents.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

Well regulated at the time of the founding documents meant "In good working order. Disciplined". And the second amendment says "arms", not "firearms". Google the Puckle gun. The advances in firearm technology have no bearing on the right. Any more than the internet, digital media, and social media do related to the first amendment in terms of the quill pen and parchment paper of that era.

And as we all know, any snarky uses of militia in suggesting the second amendment was only a collective right will be referred to detention for a studious and sincere review with Mr. Hand of the founding documents (precursors, documents themselves, and immediate post establishment documents) until clarity is achieved. Modern era post-1970 revisionist second amendment scholarly gymnastics, even by the likes of Warren Burger, will result in further demerits and detention. And missing out on Pheobe Cates getting out of the pool in her red bikini.

The duck analogy above is wishful thinking by someone who's knowledge of semiautomatic firearm mechanics and function could fit on the head of a pin. Lots of emotional responses today in the partisan political dumpster fire that is the American discourse on guns.

David Yamane. Gun curious. Great read.

Enjoy the weekend, gents.

A college friend had at it with Phoebe. He was a legend on campus.

[DMac]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

Well regulated at the time of the founding documents meant "In good working order. Disciplined". And the second amendment says "arms", not "firearms". Google the Puckle gun. The advances in firearm technology have no bearing on the right. Any more than the internet, digital media, and social media do related to the first amendment in terms of the quill pen and parchment paper of that era.

And as we all know, any snarky uses of militia in suggesting the second amendment was only a collective right will be referred to detention for a studious and sincere review with Mr. Hand of the founding documents (precursors, documents themselves, and immediate post establishment documents) until clarity is achieved. Modern era post-1970 revisionist second amendment scholarly gymnastics, even by the likes of Warren Burger, will result in further demerits and detention. And missing out on Pheobe Cates getting out of the pool in her red bikini.

The duck analogy above is wishful thinking by someone who's knowledge of semiautomatic firearm mechanics and function could fit on the head of a pin. Lots of emotional responses today in the partisan political dumpster fire that is the American discourse on guns.

David Yamane. Gun curious. Great read.

Enjoy the weekend, gents.

From wiki

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

I hope Mr. Madison got detention for this.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

Well regulated at the time of the founding documents meant "In good working order. Disciplined". And the second amendment says "arms", not "firearms". Google the Puckle gun. The advances in firearm technology have no bearing on the right. Any more than the internet, digital media, and social media do related to the first amendment in terms of the quill pen and parchment paper of that era.

And as we all know, any snarky uses of militia in suggesting the second amendment was only a collective right will be referred to detention for a studious and sincere review with Mr. Hand of the founding documents (precursors, documents themselves, and immediate post establishment documents) until clarity is achieved. Modern era post-1970 revisionist second amendment scholarly gymnastics, even by the likes of Warren Burger, will result in further demerits and detention. And missing out on Pheobe Cates getting out of the pool in her red bikini.

The duck analogy above is wishful thinking by someone who's knowledge of semiautomatic firearm mechanics and function could fit on the head of a pin. Lots of emotional responses today in the partisan political dumpster fire that is the American discourse on guns.

David Yamane. Gun curious. Great read.

Enjoy the weekend, gents.

From wiki

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

I hope Mr. Madison got detention for this.

That Wiki tidbit provides but a few crumbs from the smorgasbord of impassioned debate that surrounded the Bill of Rights and 2A at the time of our founding. The whole shebang is a rather fascinating thing to read, and various scholarly tomes have gathered together and contextualized it all. Having put in the time, and not done any crime, I am comfortable with my takeaways regarding the 2A. And of course I shall respect the opinion of those who might differ in theirs. After all, it's a free country! I think

[Seacoaster(1)]

This issue -- the meaning of the Second Amendment in personal gun ownership terms, and the ability then of governments to regulate firearms -- was decided by votes, not reasoning, in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is still worthwhile to go back and read Scalia's decision for the majority, locating in this strange text a personal right to gun ownership, and John Paul's Stevens's dissent, reviewing the Second Amendment's text and finding that "when each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1962736 (Stevens, dissenting).

On the language and the (especially, perhaps) history underlying the Amendment, Stevens pretty much wins the day. But Scalia had the votes (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito). It is still a worthwhile read for anyone interested in some of the reasons for our gun violence problems today.

Whatever room Scalia may have tried to leave for governmental gun regulation was carefully and deliberately narrowed by the Court majority's decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which, fourteen years after Heller, the majority adopted a new standard against which nearly all gun-regulation is evaluated:

"To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”

This tossed the government's ability to regulate gun type, use and ownership into the relative vagaries of historical interpretation. Heller was used in Bruen to simply state that the text is no longer even the starting point; the current majority moved the analysis further away from text and into determination of difficult historical events and reasoning. The result is that the Second Amendment in some respects is the most absolute of constitutional mandates now, without much of the balancing against other societal interests, which we see in the jurisprudence of other contemporaneously adopted Amendments, like the First Amendment. And so, we have gunmen visiting our churches and movie theatres and colleges and elementary schools and grocery stores and office spaces, with recourse only against that shooter, and not the underlying issue of gun ownership -- government efforts to regulate and protect are now functionally cut off.

The currently pending (argued and awaiting decision) Rahimi case will tell us how far the historical test, above, will go.