[JohnnyD]

I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.

There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)

The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.

For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.

Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.

The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.

In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.

Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.

All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.

With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.

I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.