Diversity

At columbine Dylan has a sawed off shotgun and a 9mm handgun. Eric has a sawed off shotgun and a 995 carabine which has a vague resemblance to the weapon used to shoot Kennedy.
It is NOT even a semi automatic. It came to market specifically because of the AWB.

There were no AR-15’s at columbine, or any other AWV banned weapon. The shotguns were 30 years old.

The 2007 Va Tech shooting was with a paid of hand guns.

Even Lanza had a Glock.

Statistics on school shootings are really really hard to draw any meaning from – the numbers are just far too small compared to guns as a whole.

The long term trend is towards LESS gun violence (and less overall violence) in the US.

I have read elsewhere that your claim about AR-15’s is actually crap – with respect to school shootings.

AR-15 like weapons are prefered by those who engage in mass killings in less confined spaces.
Because it is a good weapon for open spaces. Just as a hand gun is a good weapon for indoors.

I am not the one distorting the facts.
And your quotes demonstrate it.

The 995 was LATER designated an “assault rifle” – a term with absolutely no meaning, in Connecticut.

It is actually a carbine – as I said much like the gun that killed JFK

It has about 1/5 the rate of Fire of an AR-15. It is also a short weapon, making it slightly more suitable than the AR-15 in an environment like a school.

This is just another example of the left changing the goal posts in this case ex post facto.

By the time your are done, you will have air soft rifles designated as “assualt weapons”.

Be honest – as far as you are concerned there is no gun of any kind that you beleive anyone should be allowed to own.

Eric and Dylan used weapons that were not assualt riles and were legal, and remained legal through the entire AWB.

One state after the fact changing a designation does not change federal law, or the law in the remaining 49.

You would likely convict whoever sold them the 995 for violating the AWB, because one DIFFERENT state, years later made a stupid designation.

All this actually points out is the idiocy of the left.

There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. It is a made up term without real meaning.

The 1992 AWB law most accurately described banned scary looking weapons.
It specifically targeted a set of features that were completely about appearance.
And essentially said that guns that had some number of features in common with some hypothetical idea of a movie military weapon were “assault weapons”

This stupidity is actually important, because Kleibold’s 9m handgun is as effective if not more so, in a school than an AR-15.

No one trusts you – because you are lying relatively openly.
You are not looking to ban scarry looking weapons.
When you say “we should do something” what you really mean is that we should incrementally errode peoples rights until their are none left doing things that will not work, guaranteeing we will have to come back again screaming “we must do something” and whittling away even more.

Do not accuse me of misrepresenting – why I have accurately represented the facts, and you are lying about your intentions.

You are not after “common sense” gun laws.
You are not after solutions to a problem.
You do not really give a damn that people are being killed – if you did you would be proposing ideas that could work, not ones you know will accomplish nothing.

Ron,

While there are many things your link gets right, there is ALOT it gets wrong.
The constitution provides for a standing Navy – the constitutional convention decided that was not a threat to individual liberty and the US was a maritime nation facing interferance from the most powerful navy in the world.

But the constitution does NOT provide for a standing army. While it does not litterally bar it, it requires the army can be funded for no more than two years at a time.
The constitution allows for the existance of a federal army, and assumes raising it on an as needed basis. It does nto presume a standing army.
We maintained a very small standing army from 1791 forward, to garrison west point, and to deal with ongoing conflicts with american indians. The scale of this army was small.
In every subsequent military conflict we had to raise a new army and after the conflict we cashiered most of that army – that has been true through the end of WWII.
Even at the start of WWII the US standing army was extremely small. To a large extent since WWI we mostly kept a large enough standing army to maintain a professional officiers corp, as that was deemed of critical importance when a new war started.

Regardless, the debates over the 2nd amendment had almost nothing to do with a federal standing army. In 1787 the presumption was in the event of a land war in the US, that the militia of the whole of the people would function as our army, atleast until something more on the lines of the continental army could b trained.

Arguably history has proven this not such a hot idea.
But THAT was still the reference frame for the constitution and 23nd amendment.

Armed citizenry were NOT the counter to a standing army as only a small one at most was envisioned.

I would further note that our founders understood the revolution first hand.
On one hand the defeat of the British at Yorktown would not have been possible but for the years Washington spent building a disciplined army.
But the land conflict with the British was not homogenous.

Despite the tremendous success of the minuteman at lexington and concord, The british won nearly every attempt by militamen to stand and fight, and won most engagements all the way to Yorktown. They drove the irregulars from Boston, through new york and philadelphia with ease.

At the same time they were absolutely devestated by irregulars that engaged in harrassing measures. The british rapidly learned they could not occupy any parts of the north – particularly new england outside of major cities. When the British ventured out from cities and the contintals avoided engagements and used harrassing measures, the british forces were slowly anhiliated.

There were also significantly different tactics used in the south than in the north.
The formal trained militia structure that the left pretends is what the constitution is about did actually exist in the south. The major british armies were in the north not the south – as the north was considered the center of the rebellion. Smaller british forces fought in the south against better trained millitias, and over time the british were driven out of the south.
But their presence there was never as great as the north.

This is also reflected in the 2nd amendment.

The history of the debate on the 2nd amendment and the language of the amendment was deliberately intended to leave the southern states with the understanding that the 2nd amendment was about millitias. There was an incredibly strong organized militia tradition in the south – much like state guard forces today. And the south remains through today as the fountainhead of most of our officer corp.

But new england had a radically different tradition.

The minutemen were no myth to new englanders. While they had been unable to drive the english from Boston or New York, at the same time, they made the rest of new england uninhabitable by british troops.

I have ignored those in what was the west at that time – because to a large extent they were not involved int he revolutionary war. But they were heavily involved in an individual gun culture.

These were people who lived in farms relatively isolated from the government, dependent on rifles for food, as well as defense against indians.

For someone engaged in rhetorical arguments, you do not seem to be able to read, nor are you cognizant of history.

The militia clause is independent. It is unnecescary and adds no meaning, The 2nd amendment could just as easily have been writing

Sabre Tooth tigers being large and hairy, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I provided you references to the right to bear arms in the federalist papers in a prior link.
Clearly you have not read those.

You are further ignorant of the meaning of militia’s in the founders sense.

At the time of the revolution every adult male was required to own a gun and was legally defined as part of the militia, to be called up at any time. Police forces did not exit until the mid 19th century in the US and were not the norm until into the 20th.
This country was founded explicitly without a standing army. Nor was the militia of the time the equivalent of the state and national guard today. As I said EVERY adult male was by law part of the militia.

Our founders did not want a standing army (or police force) they thought armed government was a threat to liberty. Gun control for our founders – was Government can not be armed except under unusual circumstances, but ordinary people are to be armed under all circumstances.

That is the context the 2nd amendment was written in.

To the extent the militia clause has any meaning at all, it is that EVERYONE should be armed, because they might have to overthrow a tyranical government.

You can deem that view as quint or outdated, but it is the meaning of the 2nd amendment as written and understood by the people of the time.

If you do not like that – amend the constitution.

You are free to change the constitution by amendment as you are able.
You are not free to play semantic games to wish what it says away.

You are free to argue it is obsolete or outdated. We still update its meaning by amendment, not by semantic games.

In 1783 there was no US army – the founders opposed a standing army, there was no national guard for the same reason, there was no police – federal state or local.

The “millitia” was all adult males, and they were ALL armed.

In that environment our founders STILL felt it was necescary for citizens to be armed in order to threaten or overthrow the government if necescary.

I would further note – as with school shootings, that major reason for an individual right to arms is as a deterent. It is not to go to war against the combined might of the military, but to cause government to fear that it might have to go to war against an armed citizenry,
That incentive goes even further.
Do you really beleive that the combined military is going to obey an order to fight and armed citizenry, that is their neighbors and friends?

Kent State shows the consequences when government oversteps in its use of force.
Tienamen square shows that even one man can stand up to a tank – when the tank commander is unwilling to murder his own people. East Germany collapsed because the military would not prop up a totalitarian dictator and kill millions of citizens.

It is not necescary to win a war against the government. “A house divided against itself can not stand”. It is not even necescary to have a war against the government.
It is merely necescary to keep in the back of the mind of our rulers, that we are still very well armed.

And yes, that threat is all the more credible if people possess large magazines, and high rate of fire weapons.

There are more guns in the US than people. I beleive slightly less than half of us own guns.

Do you really expect the government to confront the people to disarm them ?
No government survives the slaughter of its own people.
The more heavily armed they are the quicker the government will collapse.

Need I remind you of some of the places where government did disarm the populace ?
Nazi Germany, Lennist Russia, Maoist China

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
– Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
Adolf Hitler April 11, 1942

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
Josef Stalin

Idi Amin in Uganda confiscated guns and then murdered 300,000 christians.

Pol Pot confiscated guns and murdered 2million cambodians.

“From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
George Washington

Prior to WWI Turkey disarmed and murdered 1.5M armenians

Guatemalla required gun registration at very high fees, and then murdered 300,000 Mayans

Gun registration and confiscation laws were past in Rwanda shortly before slaughtering 800,000 people.

During the 20th century 4 times more people were killed by their own governments, than were killed in all wars. Far more people were killed by their own governments than by criminals.