I find it interesting that those who advocate for "original intent" of the Constitution selectively ignore the original intent of the 2nd amendment. There is a comma in the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Three commas to be precise. It was written to be broad and to apply to state Militias, not these wackaloon groups that call themselves "patriot". That is the biggest misnomer I have ever heard. Consequently, even if you do not agree that this applied mostly to State militia's, then look at the kinds of guns that were around in 1787. By today's standards they were very poor instruments. Hence, the type of guns that they were allowing State Militias and individuals to have were muskets.
As with all improvements in technology, they were unforeseen by the Founding Fathers, they could not have envisioned the Colt hand gun or the birth of the Internet or even Online Banking. Hence, originally the Founding Fathers were talking about muskets. As time has passed, a reasonable assessment of this issue must take into account these changes.
As a person who lived the first 36 years of my life in Michigan, I don't have a problem with people who have shot guns. I grew up on a farm I know for what purpose animals are raised. Also, my family liked to go hunting during the various assigned times throughout the year. I never got a kick out of it, but hey whatever floats your boat. So regulating these guns for hunters is absurd. However, as I moved to the East and in more populated areas, I have no problem regulating automatic weapons and hand guns. These guns were developed for only one purpose, killing people. And that old argument that "if you take away guns only the criminals will have them," is hallow. The criminals have them now and anyone who knows how to get a gun illegally will get one whenever they wish. The other thing about this issue is "how do we know this witticism is true"? This nation has never tried to eliminate hand guns. . and its poor efforts in regulation of the Brady Bill in the 1990s do not show much advancement, slight but not much. The other part of this answer lies in that "if only criminals will have guns, then we know who to arrest don't we."
Crime will not go down because of the elimination of these weapons, but violent crime will. People will have to rely on physical force and while not all people are created equal in that department, it will make things more difficult on the criminal since he/she now have to engage physically with their victims rather than just shoot them. I know it is strange but think about it. The longer a victim struggles the more likely someone will notice.
And the question remains why do people feel the need to arm themselves? Crime has decreased over the last 20 or so years, mostly due to the fact that we have added more police to the payrolls. So what are you afraid of? If you live out in the middle of a field in northern CT, for example, what are you afraid of, bears? How many people have been injured by shooting someone by mistake? Thousands. I recall a story of a man in Alabama, these stories always take place in Alabama, and his daughter was coming home late and she was sneaking into the house and before the father could say anything he shot her. Now, I would be upset at my daughter, but I don't think she should have to died for making a stupid mistake.
So what it boils down to is this. keep you hunting rifles. But the hand guns and automatic weapons belong in a museum where you can go look at them but not own one. If you are so afraid of being attacked, then maybe we need to address why people feel this way? Its a psychological/sociological problem that needs to be addressed.
What a issue
As with all improvements in technology, they were unforeseen by the Founding Fathers, they could not have envisioned the Colt hand gun or the birth of the Internet or even Online Banking. Hence, originally the Founding Fathers were talking about muskets. As time has passed, a reasonable assessment of this issue must take into account these changes.
As a person who lived the first 36 years of my life in Michigan, I don't have a problem with people who have shot guns. I grew up on a farm I know for what purpose animals are raised. Also, my family liked to go hunting during the various assigned times throughout the year. I never got a kick out of it, but hey whatever floats your boat. So regulating these guns for hunters is absurd. However, as I moved to the East and in more populated areas, I have no problem regulating automatic weapons and hand guns. These guns were developed for only one purpose, killing people. And that old argument that "if you take away guns only the criminals will have them," is hallow. The criminals have them now and anyone who knows how to get a gun illegally will get one whenever they wish. The other thing about this issue is "how do we know this witticism is true"? This nation has never tried to eliminate hand guns. . and its poor efforts in regulation of the Brady Bill in the 1990s do not show much advancement, slight but not much. The other part of this answer lies in that "if only criminals will have guns, then we know who to arrest don't we."
Crime will not go down because of the elimination of these weapons, but violent crime will. People will have to rely on physical force and while not all people are created equal in that department, it will make things more difficult on the criminal since he/she now have to engage physically with their victims rather than just shoot them. I know it is strange but think about it. The longer a victim struggles the more likely someone will notice.
And the question remains why do people feel the need to arm themselves? Crime has decreased over the last 20 or so years, mostly due to the fact that we have added more police to the payrolls. So what are you afraid of? If you live out in the middle of a field in northern CT, for example, what are you afraid of, bears? How many people have been injured by shooting someone by mistake? Thousands. I recall a story of a man in Alabama, these stories always take place in Alabama, and his daughter was coming home late and she was sneaking into the house and before the father could say anything he shot her. Now, I would be upset at my daughter, but I don't think she should have to died for making a stupid mistake.
So what it boils down to is this. keep you hunting rifles. But the hand guns and automatic weapons belong in a museum where you can go look at them but not own one. If you are so afraid of being attacked, then maybe we need to address why people feel this way? Its a psychological/sociological problem that needs to be addressed.