Or, they would have said:
Hey, fuck-heads. As tragic as it is that those kids were killed, you have street violence that kills more people every week than that, so set your priorities straight and fix that!
They were very fond of calling people “fuck-heads”, or so I hear.
I can’t help you Bob. If you want to be deliberately obtuse there is nothing I can do about that, man. And if you want to remain deliberately, hell militantly ignorant about this and continue to think that it’s all made up, then you will do what you will do. Sadly, fighting ignorance takes longer than we thought because some ignorance doesn’t want to be fought. C’est la vie…
If that was directed at me then I have no idea how you got here from what I wrote…or how this meaningfully ties into, well, anything.
Well, if we want to consider what regulations should apply to guns used by the militia, you would want maximize killing potential not minimize it.
The OP seems to think that the founders just didn’t realize how dangerous guns were. And if they had only been told, that pesky right to bear arms never would have been conceived.
My point, fleshed out more a few posts down, is that the power firearms give to the bearer is the entire reason that right was enshrined, not something they forgot to think about, or considered and then dismissed because guns just weren’t powerful enough at the time to worry about.
Guns have been powerful enough to kill children with since their invention. It’s silly to think the founders just didn’t consider that, and would have thought better of guns had only they known.
Probably nearly as surprised as they’d be to find out states previously had the power to regulate such things in the first place.
I’m prepared to support full and easy access to any weapon that existed in 1800, if that would help. Muskets and cavalry swords for all!
Why would they thinks states did not have such authority?
Some states had, essentially, mandatory church attendance.
The majority of gun crimes (murder, assault, robbery) are committed by people with long criminal records. In a nation of 300+ million schoolyard, shopping mall, and movie theater shootings are extraordinarily rare events. I suspect the founders would be angered at our revolving door justice system and boggled over an attempt to ban arms based on events that almost never happen.
Because no legislature ever had before. There were no restrictions on abortion in any US state until 1821.
I’m sure the FF knew perfectly well how dangerous guns were, yes. They accepted the smaller risk that some crazy person might use them incorrectly to counter the bigger risk they saw of a disarmed population.
I agree.
It’s a matter of weighing various risks, and basically doing what they considered to be the least amount of harm.
Given that the Founders generally thought that the really important political rights should be the province of Proper Respectable People rather than of any member of the Teeming Millions who could emit greenhouse gases and 310K blackbody radiation, they might well have been amenable to language that would condition the RKBA on active militia service and training. Actually, that seems to have been their default assumption, given that an additional clause exempting people with religious scruples against bearing arms was considered (but not ultimately included in the ratified amendment).
So? Did the FF not think the states had plenary powers?
I doubt they would have changed anything, except to remove the ambiguity that makes people think that arms were limited to militias. They would have assumed other laws would be passed to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of lunatics, children, and criminals. Apparently they would have been wrong about that.
Sure, but their idea of plenary powers was rather different from the one we have now.
Different wrt regulating abortion? Women weren’t allowed to vote, why should they be able to get an abortion if the good men of that state thought they shouldn’t?
We don’t have laws to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics and criminals (I don’t see why we should have laws to keep them out of the hands of children)??
We do but they are not enforced adequately.
You don’t think the founders would have tolerated the type of criminal scum we do, and given them a mere slap on the wrist for their offenses, do you?
Capital punishment is constitutional, it’s even mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But allowing a convicted murderer to sit in a cell for 10-20 years before his sentence is carried out is insane. No way would that have been the case in the 18th century.
We have the laws, they don’t work very well.
Why would that surprise them? They wrote the Tenth Amendment, after all.
For the Founding Fathers, to the federal government “whatever is not mandatory is forbidden”. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to regulate abortion assigned to the federal government. Ergo, it belongs to the states, or the people.
Regards,
Shodan