I'm sure they wouldn't intend to give the government exclusive power to use the better weapons, meaning the government could oppress the people and suppress revolution. So, yes, I think we can know a little bit about what the writers intended. It's what they wrote.We'll never know, if they knew about the firepower of today's weapons, they might have been more careful with their words.
They also mentioned something about a militia that 2A er's seem to gloss over.I'm sure they wouldn't intend to give the government exclusive power to use the better weapons, meaning the government could oppress the people and suppress revolution. So, yes, I think we can know a little bit about what the writers intended. It's what they wrote.
As was mineNow you're going down the rabbit hole. It was in jest to his post, nothing more.
As has been covered, according to George Mason, the 'militia' is everyone, the whole of the people. We can certainly discuss that point further if you want.They also mentioned something about a militia that 2A er's seem to gloss over.
So if you choose to distort the meaning, you're suggesting they wanted to enshrine a "right to join a militia."They also mentioned something about a militia that 2A er's seem to gloss over.
0.5 sounds reasonable.we should limit all clips in automatic revolvers to 3.5 bullets
The revolver part wasn't the problem, it was the semi-auto part. There hasn't been a revolver action in anything but a handgun made in decades. When someone says 'semi auto' it's super important to specify the type of arm so we know what we're talking about.
I don't know, that's the whole goddamn point of being specific, I'm not a mind reader Jim.
I'd like to think you were referring to Pistols but I cannot be sure.
Maybe you meant a revolver action rifle?
Colt's New Model revolving rifle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Don't say clips, the proper word is magazines, wouldn't want them to get another "gotcha" in there. Yes, I know some rifles use/used clips.we should limit all clips in automatic revolvers to 3.5 bullets
Bottom line, I gave my suggestion to curtail the mass murder/shootings epidemic and none of you have offered any suggestions of your own. What's your plan, I'm all ears.
I was being intentionally obtuse to point out how words have meaning, and lack of words introduces confusion.Yea, I agree it's pretty obvious what someone means when they say revolver, I guess it was pretty silly of you to pretend otherwise.
That's another good example of why terminology is important, not as a 'gotcha' but so we understand what the hell we're all talking about. Also so that when some lawmaker makes a law, it actually makes sense when argued in front of a court. 'You know what we meant' doesn't fly in front of a judge or panel of lawyers.Don't say clips, the proper word is magazines, wouldn't want them to get another "gotcha" in there. Yes, I know some rifles use/used clips.
You think the reasoning for the 2A is less relevant now? Or just that because the weapons are more capable, there's higher risk associated?Now it's time to focus on what someone in the 18th century thought as opposed to what's relevant now.
Great, I want my nukes and missiles now!I'm sure they wouldn't intend to give the government exclusive power to use the better weapons, meaning the government could oppress the people and suppress revolution. So, yes, I think we can know a little bit about what the writers intended. It's what they wrote.
Works for Trump and republicans .'You know what we meant' doesn't fly in front of a judge or panel of lawyers.
And that's an abortion of law an order.Works for Trump and republicans .
You think the reasoning for the 2A is less relevant now? Or just that because the weapons are more capable, there's higher risk associated?
So you feel that the founders didn't see a risk in stating that everyone in the nation should have permission to own firearms then? Or that it was an acceptable risk?Both
I was being intentionally obtuse to point out how words have meaning, and lack of words introduces confusion.
So you feel that the founders didn't see a risk in stating that everyone in the nation should have permission to own firearms then? Or that it was an acceptable risk?
Why is the 2A less relevant now?
When the conversation train first started it was genuinely confusing to me, as we were discussing both pistols and rifles at that moment. The revolver thing was intentionally obtuse and in that circumstance one could reasonably say that they knew revolver meant pistol, as no revolver rifles have been made in like a hundred years (I even had to google to make sure they existed).Yea, and that was pretty silly considering just moments later you used the exact same word in the exact same context.
Sometimes it's ok to assume people know what you're talking about within the context of a discussion. When comparing one type of handgun (revolver) to another type of handgun (semi auto), it should be pretty safe to assume an intelligent person understands you are talking about handguns without specifying handgun multiple times. You even said you knew I was talking about "pistols", so it appears my assumption was correct.
Do you believe they were writing a document that they felt would only be relevant for 50, 100 years? Or does the rest of the document look like it's pretty well stood the test of time (amendments regarding slavery notwithstanding)?I think the world has changed far more than they could have ever imagined. We shouldn't dismiss good ideas simply because someone thought differently 250 years ago.
Keep shamelessly dismissing/ignoring inconvenient truths and well-made points.Keep playing...
LOL! Just ignore that the intent is quite literally spelled out in writing and law. Playing dumb about it doesn't win Internet points.How do you know their intent?
You saying you can't stop someone with a revolver? Dirty Harry would disagreeYou would overwhelmingly restrict handguns "... because mass shootings ..." -- but most mass shootings are perpetrated with rifles. Even without semi-auto rifles, there would continue to be effective rifle options for mass shooters (bolt/pump/lever-action), so you'd effectively restrict nearly all civilian handgun owners and have very little impact on mass shooters.
When the conversation train first started it was genuinely confusing to me, as we were discussing both pistols and rifles at that moment. The revolver thing was intentionally obtuse and in that circumstance one could reasonably say that they knew revolver meant pistol, as no revolver rifles have been made in like a hundred years (I even had to google to make sure they existed).
Conversations regarding semi-autos, I'd just say its good practice at all times to specify the type of weapon just so everyone's on the same page. It's like saying 'PC' without delineating 'laptop' vs 'desktop'.
Do you believe they were writing a document that they felt would only be relevant for 50, 100 years? Or does the rest of the document look like it's pretty well stood the test of time (amendments regarding slavery notwithstanding)?