roughly one bullet a second (semi-automatic rifle) to "13.3 goddamn bullets per second" (machine gun).

What is your point???

how the media hungers to report details of the exact weapon that the shooter of the day used for their latest horror. "If it bleeds it leads", and what makes it bleed leads, too. Case in point, please review all of the attention and corrections made on the exact model of semi automatic weapon used at Sandy Hook.

No-one uses bump fire stocks to shoot up a school yard or bar because they are a crappy uncontrollable gimmick only good for wasting money and ammunition to impress your friends at the range.

Murderers to kill children are semi automatic , not fully automatic...because killing innocent people with a semi automatic is somehow more controlling....

I charge for my sessions, and I will not go any further down this rabbit hole...unless I am on the clock.

I did notice the implied argument from authority in your declaration that "I charge for my sessions..."

Often experts in one field believe that their expertise carries over to another, when such is not actually the case.

For example, noted linguist Noam Chomsky was taken in by Shiva Ayyadurai:

https://www.google.com/search?q=inventor+of+email+noam+chomsky&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

So you're in good company in your mistaken belief that your degrees and professional experience
are germane in a conversation not related to your field.

Of trying to be rational in an irrational conversation, which I am realizing that gun talk is becoming mostly emotional hyperbole.

Potentially V.A. should try to incorporate the entire email, EMAIL universe of people, entities as such to validate his role in that invention..for it is a mighty tool.

Guns back then were not able to kill so many people at once, and I am not talking about a fully auto rifle but a semi auto.

I have no idea what it is trying to prove.

"Guns back then"were state of the art military weapons. George "Ferfucksake" Washington had every expectation that "the people" would be armed with weapons equal in function to those carried by the military. Is that what you want?

What makes you say that Washington "had every expectation that "the people" would be armed with weapons equal in function to those carried by the military." Is there something written by him or attributed to him that says this?
2nd, Does that include cannons? mortars? a nuke?

If you look up the Militia Acts of 1792, passed during his time in office and signed into law by him, you will find that the second act stated that Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33
Section 1

And his first address to congress touched on defense and the necessity of arming and training the militia, and ensuring that the colonies could produce their own essential supplies (including military supplies):
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29431

Anything else I can help you with?

"Washington had every expectation that "the people" would be armed with weapons equal in function to those carried by the military." You are using that to make the point that citizens should have the same weapons that the military does. When asked why you think Washington thought that your proof was that he signed the militia acts of 1792, which states "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", wait a minute, "the people" and "every citizen, so enrolled and notified" are the same thing? Cause you see, there is a qualifier on one of those that you fail to see, its the "so enrolled", as in being a member of the militia. Or, not the people, because not all are enrolled in the militia, only the ones in the militia. This argument also gives more weight that the founding fathers did not want all of "the people" to have military arms because once again, they added a qualifier,,,"so enrolled".
Thanks.

Thank you. I will try to answer in kind.

The average continental soldier was expected to be equipped as follows:
"The Continental infantryman had equipment that was like that of the British soldier. In addition to a musket, he carried on his right side a leather or tin cartridge box that held twenty to thirty rounds of ammunition, a musket tool, and a supply of flints. On his left side he carried his bayonet in a leather scabbard attached to a linen or leather shoulder strap. Each soldier had a haversack, usually made of linen, to carry his food rations and eating utensils. The utensils usually included a fork made of wrought iron, a pewter or horn spoon, a knife, a plate, and a cup. He also had a canteen of wood, tin, or glass to carry water. A knapsack held extra clothing and other personal items such as a razor for shaving, a tinderbox with flint and steel for starting a fire, candle holders, a comb, and a mirror. Soldiers also often carried a fishhook and some twine so that they could catch some fish when they were near a lake, creek, or river."
http://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

When you compare that to what the militia members were expected to bring, and then take into consideration that when these acts were passed, the militia consisted of all males between the ages of 18 and 45, then yes, I think that Washington expected the average American male to be armed on a level with the regular army soldiers. Actually, it seemed that AT LEAST the militia members had to maintain that level of arms, as there is nothing I have found in the documents of the day that discuss any restrictions on the rest of the country as far as being armed.

As for the second amendment and the argument that it only applies to the militia, I would point out that the amendment says that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of members of the militia. That same phrase is used in 5 other amendments - the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th - and in none of those cases is it interpreted other than to refer to the entire body of the American people. Why would it have a different meaning in just one amendment?

This is not to say that reasonable regulation is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, if it were up to me, no one would be able to buy a firearm without first having completed a course of instruction on general firearms safety, and demonstrated the ability to safely handle firearms. My dad required me to do that before I was able to pick up a rifle, and I will ensure that my grandchildren (who I will be allowed to teach to shoot, according to their mothers) are taught general safety and firearms handling before they ever pull the trigger on a live round.

If you are interested, here is an interesting link to a legal history of the second amendment. It doesn't appear to be biased in one direction or another, and it is pretty darn comprehensive. I recommend it for anyone interested in this subject no matter what your personal feelings are:
http://lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/SecondAmendment/judicial-interpretation-second-amendment.shtm

I await your thoughts on this post.

I would rather have a discussion than lob insults and you have been very civil also, thank you for that.
I like to feel that I am fairly well versed in history but this instance I had no knowledge of. It is pretty surprising on quite a few levels. I am amazed that a nation recently freed from Brittan would create a law that puts quite a large population under conscription and amazed that it still seems like it is a valid law. One more birthday and it would not apply to me though lol. One last point is that this only applies to something like 37% of the population, I still don't see that as a valid argument for Washington or the founders to want "all people" to have a military grade firearm. It is a pretty good argument though.

If you are still interested in this subject, I suggest you look at 18th and early 19th century sources and documents for a sense of the public attitudes and beliefs. To me, that is the best way to attempt to determine original intent.

I have to say up front I have never found anything that absolutely, without a doubt, proves the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms was a right of every American, for both personal defense and to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping the power they had just wrested from British hands. I reached that opinion after many hours of research, going back all the way to Blackstone's writings form 17th century England. However, as they say, YMMV... You may have a completely different opinion, or you may not.

In any event, you took the time to follow up and check for yourself, and that's all I ever ask of those who disagree with me.

Have a happy!

And to your point in this post about why, you have to look at the primary purposes behind the notion of citizen militias - "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty". {Gerry}.

Standing armies, with professional soldiers, were the arm of tyrants, built upon the ruin of the militias. While great portions of the people were the militia.

And now the new constitution was to give the govt substantial power over those bodies (hoping to make them more effective), it was a big cause of distrust.

Yet, the entire constitution, starting with the preamble, ending with its guarantees, its very existence - is predicated on the role of the people - serving as the state militias - defending and securing their rights, the laws, the states, and the nation.

The militias were EXTREMELY vital, so they had to be effective, and they had to be uniformly & effectively armed (via themselves - so they couldn't be DISarmed by the govt), and organized and trained.


"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

"15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."



"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." {Gerry}

At the time slaves and women were considered possessions not people. We've gotten wiser.

(this is all my opinion borne out of having shot multiple flintlock muskets over the years of 18th century design).

Military muskets (Brown Bess/Charleville) were heavy (~10.5 pounds), poorly balanced (very muzzle heavy even without the affixed bayonet) and inaccurate due to the musket balls being undersized compared the bore which made for faster reloading and less fouling) but their construction made them more rugged.

A colonial civilian, on the other hand, had what was referred to as a "fowler". It was a tad longer, lighter weight (~8 pounds), better balanced and more accurate due to tighter tolerance between the size of the ball and the size of the bore. It's downsides, it was slower to reload (harder to ram the ball home) and not nearly as rugged as its military counterpart.

So the argument can be made the civilian weapons of the War of Independence era were "better" than their military counterparts.