is why guns need to be banned.

Stupid beyond words.

But not to those of us who lost a loved one to gun fire. When I say all guns I am implying weapons of war.

Do you want to ban all firearms that were used in wars? If so, you would ban this (Brown Bess flintlock, used in many wars):



But not this (AR-15, never used in war):



When proposing legislation, words matter. What exactly do you want to ban (and confiscate?) from American civilians?

any weapon used by the military, exceot for military use.

This is getting crazy. I was only trying to make a point that, being someone who has lost a loved one thru gunfire, that these types of weapons should be banned.

so, tell me what modern military in the world uses a semi auto rifle as their main battle rifle?
I did 35 years in the Corps and for the life of me, I can't remember EVER seeing a semi auto as a main battle rifle.
Am I wrong?

Was the ,30M1 Garand (1934-1957) and the cal.30 M1Carbine (1942-1973)

in Vietnam, I carried the venerable M-14 during my first tour, my second tour, the M-16A1.
If I would have had a choice back then, I would've preferred the M-14 over the M-16.

So if we want to use the 'original intent' interpretation of the constitution in which it is alleged that 'militia' refers to all able bodies white men and 'well regulated' means operating correctly this is the arm you can carry.

If, on the other hand, the argument is that the modern sporting rife (a completely fabricated term unlike assault weapon) is protected we must accept that the Constitution is a living document open to reasonable interpretation to encompass evolving technology in which case it's up to courts and legislature to decide what is covered by the 2nd.

Which is it?

Since the main means of mass communications at that point of time was the printed handbill and the quill pen.

I was riffing on a post from someone who is clearly an expert on all things gun.

the populace, but that doesn't make me an "expert" on the subject, simply someone who is well informed.

...or communication tools are protected by the First or Fourth Amendment. Is that really what you want? Of course, the Supreme Court has already dealt with that issue.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Also, you are apparently ignorant of firearms technology of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

And see no point in dealing with new ones. I am blocking you and will never see another of your posts, even the one in which you declare victory.

Well, maybe not -very- shocked.....

self defense. No children in the home, BTW.

Are available through the National Shooting Sports Federation
https://projectchildsafe.org/

Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action originally launched with a similar program Be Smart for Kids however after a couple years and no locks ever distributed that portion was quietly removed for their site. Still there are some resources on their website that someone may find useful.