Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

I just finished a great read called the history of the american marksman.
Thou not outlined in the second as written,men that formed the Militia at the time (we the people)
Were requiered to provide themselves a rifle of a certain caliber and barrel lenth,40 balls and 1 lb of powder.

Was it now? If that were true there wouldn't be a debate about what they meant. If people are honest they have no idea what was meant (and neither do I).

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

"Arms" was specifically used to not limit the type of weaponry available to the citizenry, i.e. left intentionally vague so the Congress wouldn't outlaw weapons per se, but rather left it up to the individual States.

I have to say that now the facts have been presented, it seems that the "arguments" being presented by those of you on the Anti-gun side have begun to lose their credibility...

Now you gents have basically resorted to feelings, and semantics, instead of well thought out points, and facts... Yes we know there are few facts to support Gun-Grabbing, mostly they are just political spins on the truth...

When the discussion takes a direction like that, I guess I have to just step away, but to post that the "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment could be fists ??? or muskets, is just not worth my time any longer to read...


To everyone on both sides that presented Intelligent thought out responses backed with Proofs (regardless of souces) thanks for the thoughts...

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Was it now? If that were true there wouldn't be a debate about what they meant. If people are honest they have no idea what was meant (and neither do I).

Go read The Federalist Papers to determine what the Framers meant. That's what the Supreme Court does.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Go read The Federalist Papers to determine what the Framers meant. That's what the Supreme Court does.

I don't think that Cold Hard facts are feelings. EVERYBODY who refers to any bill of rights that they weren't around to see written are are resorting to semantics, since they have no idea what was actually meant, a general consensus doesn't make something fact (there was once a general consensus that the Earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth.). All I can say is that sometimes people choose to ignore the facts in order to support what they believe are their own interests. Archaic documents don't wash with me, I prefer to make my decisions based on what happens in the real world, in the current time. If facts don't sway you, and opinions don't sway you, your mind is made up. As a humanist I view the evidence and then decide what I believe. As a healthcare scientist I am trained to assess facts and I have done so, and made up my own mind. Anything else is superflous. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to, I just hope nobody ever uses a legally acquired firearm (or illegally) to harm anybody I know, or don't, regardless of what they did.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't think that Cold Hard facts are feelings. EVERYBODY who refers to any bill of rights that they weren't around to see written are are resorting to semantics, since they have no idea what was actually meant, a general consensus doesn't make something fact (there was once a general consensus that the Earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth.). All I can say is that sometimes people choose to ignore the facts in order to support what they believe are their own interests. Archaic documents don't wash with me, I prefer to make my decisions based on what happens in the real world, in the current time. If facts don't sway you, and opinions don't sway you, your mind is made up. As a humanist I view the evidence and then decide what I believe. As a healthcare scientist I am trained to assess facts and I have done so, and made up my own mind. Anything else is superflous. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to, I just hope nobody ever uses a legally acquired firearm (or illegally) to harm anybody I know, or don't, regardless of what they did.

So I take it you haven't read The Federalist Papers. Too bad. They were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay -- men who actually crafted the Constitution, and they published these articles to educate the public about what the Constitution actually means. Thus, it is a primer into the Framers' intent, and an excellent one. Do try and read it sometime.

I shall give them a look Thank you! Is it a google jobby, or are there specific websites?

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

So I take it you haven't read The Federalist Papers. Too bad. They were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay -- men who actually crafted the Constitution, and they published these articles to educate the public about what the Constitution actually means. Thus, it is a primer into the Framers' intent, and an excellent one. Do try and read it sometime.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I shall give them a look Thank you! Is it a google jobby, or are there specific websites?

Go to your local library and check out the book, although I imagine it's not too popular in U.K. You could probably find a copy for sale online somewhere, like Amazon or eBay. It is a series of newspaper articles that have been collected into one volume entitled The Federalist Papers.
Sorry, I'm really old-fashioned that way.

The sincere beliefs of those opposed to private firearms ownership in the US and other countries are understandable. Persons, usually living in cities, having no family history of responsible firearms use and ownership obtain most of their "knowledge" from the entertainment industry and the news media where much of what is shown is distorted or incorrect, while most firearms users in the US grew up with firearms and have no fear or apprehension as is also the case with most people regarding posession of their kitchen knives. Did you ever notice that old movies show criminals committing crimes with snub nose revolvers. During that era, my recollection is that most guns recovered from criminals were also snub nose revolvers. Later, the entertainment industry portrayed criminals using autoloading firearms and now autoloading firearms are being recovered from criminals in the US. I cherish all the rights of US citizens, including freedom of the press, but wonder whether greater voluntary responsibility on the part of the news and entertainment industry might help with reducing violent crime. Why would billions of dollars be spent on advertising if what is portrayed on the media has no significant effect?

So I have a question to ask all of you be you pro or anti gun.

You wake up tomorrow morning and every firearm in the U.S is gone (yes Obama was busy last night like an anti Santa Claus) so what will be the effect in this country? Will Mexico suddenly invade us? Will you hear about mass murders where some guy used a knife to kill 30 people? Will the Elk and Deer rejoice? Will the crime stats go up or down? Will the sale of Louisville Sluggers increase causing a massive employment increase that brings the country out of recession?

So what will happen?