"Larger weapons like cannon and today’s machine gun were not kept by the individual. They were kept in a local State Militia armory, as they are today."

Based upon your statement do you believe that civilians should have the right to own guns like the AR-15? I have heard many times over and over that when the 2nd Amendment was written these types of guns were not in existence. Many feel that civilians have no use for these types of weapons. What is your thoughts on that?

Pebbles, Charlie.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, no, those weapons did not exist. The standard arm was a muzzle-loading smooth-bore flintlock. That was what the Continental Army used, the British Army used, the militia used, and was the standard colonial privately owned firearm. There were a few advanced weapons - rifled barreled flintlock that were owned by the private citizens. American militia used these accurate weapons VERY effectively against British officers. So when the 2nd Amendment was written, some citizen were better armed than the Army.

The fair comparison of a privately owned Ar-15 would be to say that today's citizen is as well armed as an individual Soldier. No more, no less.

I believe the AR-15 has a place in the population.

I do not believe full automatic machine guns do (they are illegal). Heavy machine guns like the M2 .50 cal and the 20mm and 40mm do not, and they are also illegal and tightly regulated. Just like cannons in the 1780s

So after all that, having AR-15s scattered among citizens is exactly equivalent to the armed population in the 1780s. Removing those weapons puts the citizen on a weaker footing.

Thank you for your thoughts. Im not a big fan of any gun as they make me nervous. However, I do agree they should be owned for protection and the means of hunting.

Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how to keep any gun out of the wrong hands? Do you think mental health is an issue?

I definitely think mental health is an issue to be considered. The issue is NOT the gun (it is an inanimate object, incapable of acting on its own).

I hate to use a meme as an example, but back in the late 70's and early 80's when drunk driving deaths were rampant, no one proposed (seriously) restricting cars or alcohol, much less banning them.

If a gun kills 20 in a school or a drunk driver kills 50 on a school bus, it is a tragedy either way. But one will send angry people to regulate guns while the other will send angry people to regulate drunk people.

I definitely see where you are coming from. In all reality there is dangers at ever turn in our lives.

I wholeheartedly believe we need to figure out a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But how?

If I knew the correct answer to that, I'd be a very important person right now.

Ironside,

In a nutshell, no right is absolute. We have the freedom of speech ,but this right is qualified. Pornography is considered beyond the pale of civilized society. Commercial speech is not privileged ,and merchants who make false claims may be prosecuted. Consider the don't -cry -fire- in- a - crowded- theater prohibition.

We have the freedom of of religion ,but human sacrifice, polygamy, ritual prostitution, infanticide,suttee,thugee ,child marriage, the wearing of the kirpan and the burial rite of the Parsi are prohibited.

We have the right to public assembly. We do not have the right of insurrection despite the folklore that seems to be in vogue among the far right/reactionary strain of the Republican Party.

We have the right to bear arms ,but this right too is limited.A well regulated militia is just that --well regulated.

Do not confuse freedom with anarchy or license.To do so is to trivialize our democratic tradition. Humans beings are imperfect and since Hammurabi have recognized the need for rules to curb the dark impulses of the reptilian brain.Civilization is fragile ,and if we ignore the very great need for clear limits to human behavior , the thin tissue that separates us from the beasts dissolves.You refer to the Constitution but the Constitution is both prescriptive and proscriptive, an enumeration of rights but also a clear enunciation of the obligations expected of the body politic for the commonweal.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Fly: We place limits on Speech through our elected officials. Pronography is considered beyond the pale of civilized society? I strongly agree with you on this, but that is not what is happening on the internet. Our children have access to all kinds of Pronography and we are told that it is the parent's responsibility. Why not have it the responsibilty of the Adults running these sites, and if they can not come up with a foolproof system to keep it out of the view of our children, then they can not put it on the net. Freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment is freedom of political speech only. The only exception is overthrow of the government and threats to do harm to our politicians. All other speech can be regulated by law. The absolute means we have an absolute right to defend ourselves.

theflyonthewall - The Second Amendment protects your freedom of speech, so a little appreciation of that fact might be in order.

Fly, nice post.

Gun nut - The Constitution protects my freedom of speech. Supposedly. But then the Constitution didn't do too good a job protecting American citizens of Japanese descent from internment during WWII - even though their imprisonment (which was what it was) was obviously illegal. So, how would you feel if the Japanese American citizens in California had risen up and defied incarceration by the Federal governemnt with force of arms?

Bryant, respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and I dare say part of the most perfect document by which any nation was ever founded. To preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States is every citizens duty.

As to WWII, I would point out that what you propose did not happen. What happened was that the Americans of Japanese decent used the proper legal channels to challenge and eventually overturn the Democrat Roosevelt's illegal order. What should have happened was that the Military commanders of the time should have refused to carry out that order since it was an illegal one.

But you see Bryant there is the problem we have the advantage of hind sight which they did not.

What if we did have that million gun owner march on Washington and Obama feeling the Government was threatened ordered the military to fire on peaceably assembled citizens. With a million armed (but non-violent) citizens marching into the Capital who could blame him. Would it be legal, no, but I'd be willing to wager he could find someone in his military to carry out his orders.

Just like the National Guard at Kent State? And, the Japanese were still incarcerated and lost much property and income while in detention.

So, if the government comes for your guns, will you - like the Japanese-American citizens - hand them over and seek redress through the courts?

Legal challenges; that's what gun owners all over America are doing right now Bryant or haven't you noticed. Pray it doesn't come to anything else.

The wheels of justice grind slowly...

if you're in civil court or accused of murder in Chatham County.