That is the equivalent of today's national guard.

the phrase "the right to bear arms" most often meant that in time of battle, certain clans were granted the right to carry their coat of arms on banners, the "the right to bear arms". Now, I not suggesting that there has been some misunderstanding as to what the phrase actually meant. But, wouldn't it be hilarious if some historian dug up the proof that the Constitution wasn't talking about guns bot rather was referring to banners. The NRA would loose it.

It's crystal clear reading their other writings and letters around the time the Constitution was written.

The whole intent was for the U.S. to not have a standing army, the "militia" was the people and they wrote that an armed citizenry was ideal to limit federal overreach.

I doubt the founding fathers predicted the internet, tv, or radio.

Also, the bill of rights was ratified in 1791.

The first semi auto rifle was made in 1780, 11 years before the bill of rights was passed. It could shot 20 shots a minute easily. It was an air rifle, and still had some kinks to work out, but people would have to assume that the design could be improved.

I don't think so. to try and make pretend this is the same, is just ridiculous.

Plus, free speech on the internet isn't actually causing mass murder in real time. Although some of it may help to egg these creepo nutsies who do commit mass murder on... But I guess you could say the same about a pamphlet or an article written over a hundred years too.

In other words, it's not the same... I've never read of a person being murdered with a newspaper or with words typed into a computer screen, you?

If you don't like the second amendment, get it repealed.

is more important than owning a semi auto gun with a 30 round cartridge.

you have to roll onto your back and wave it vertically to get a new ball into the chamber.

The only thing "automatic" about it is the air tank could "fire" more than one shot. That shot still had to be put into place by the person holding the gun.

In other words, he's desperately hoping no one looks up his example.

You're claiming the founding fathers would have known about widespread use of semiautomatic weapons when it took a century for the first successful design to show up.

Breech loading rifles were invented in the 1500's, and still were not in widespread use by 1789.

That's a little like saying we fully understand the legal issues that arise from interstellar travel. After all, we've got two spacecraft in interstellar space now!

The rifle existed 10 years before the bill of rights was ratified. It was also used by lewis and clark in 1803, so it was well known in the united states in the early 1800's. My point is the founding fathers should have known that 20 round rifles existed, and that the design would be improved upon.

Their point in the previous post was that the founding fathers wouldn't have known what would happen when semi auto rifles were in widespread use, and if that was the point, why didn't they limit the right of people to carry a single shot rifle. If the founding fathers were wrong when they ratified the second, then repeal it. They new the constitution would not be perfect, and setup a protocol to add and repeal amendments.

Suuuuuure.

Also, the only thing that made this air gun "semiautomatic" is you didn't have to refill the air tank after each round. The person holding the rifle still had to put a new ball into the chamber by waving the gun around vertically.

In other words, it was nothing like "fires every time you pull the trigger" semi-automatics you are attempting to equate it to.

The second amendment doesn't have a clause saying "only guns available in 1791 fall under this amendment".

If you don't like the second amendment, repeal it.

as having guns be so available that we have mulitiple mass murders a year where the weapon of choice is a firearm.

Where little babies are shot dead in kindergarten, college students, high school students, middle school students, elementary school students, people working, shopping, going to a movie being gunned down in a hail of bullets because some nutbag found it so easy to get his hand on a gun with a high capacity cartridge that the violence inflicted to kill many took seconds...

The Declaration of Independence cited life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as paramount... But the second amendment has put bullet holes into that nice thought...

Fetus-fetishizers cite the Declaration of Independence and the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" line as though the document had any legally binding status in the United States of America. It does not; the Constitution does. I am always suspicious of those who conflate the two documents to push an agenda.

However, it is a founding document that has been cited in supreme court cases as a reference.

For real, are you accusing me of being someone you ought to be suspicious of.

I do happen to think that it was a very nice ideal. One we shouldn't have tossed aside like it meant nothing.

American society is too violent.

Australians are the same way. We did something about it.