19 Children and 2 Adults Killed In Texas Elementary School Mass Shooting.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

I have shown statistics that guns are used in large numbers of cases for defensive purposes.

No.  You have not.

[GoAU 1,599]

1 hour ago, tgrogan21 said:

There you go again worrying about a hypothetical situation that has not happened and more than likely will never happen. No one is going to take all of your guns. Don't worry you and people like you can still fetishize them to the extreme. Just come out and admit that you don't really care about innocent people dying in mass shootings. You only care about your guns.

And I stand by the fact that if making it harder to get these guns saves 1 life than it's worth it. Passing stricter gun laws doesn't mean that you won't still get your guns it just means it'll take you a bit longer to get one in your hand. Sorry that trying to save innocent people is such an inconvenience for you.

I will admit no such thing.  You are just too much of a simpleton to realize that screaming to give up rights and freedom for a false sense of security is ignorant.  You can surrender as many rights as you would like, and rely on others to protect you if you'd like - not everyone feels that way.  As I've said, the silly grandstanding of "saving one life" is hollow.  How many lives will it cost?  Are those not worth something as well?  What about all of the other things that can be done to "save one life" - do those not count?

19 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No.  You have not.

Yes, I have.

[I_M4_AU 7,771]

A good discussion with Rep Dan Crenshaw on CNN.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I will admit no such thing.  You are just too much of a simpleton to realize that screaming to give up rights and freedom for a false sense of security is ignorant.  You can surrender as many rights as you would like, and rely on others to protect you if you'd like - not everyone feels that way.  As I've said, the silly grandstanding of "saving one life" is hollow.  How many lives will it cost?  Are those not worth something as well?  What about all of the other things that can be done to "save one life" - do those not count?

Yes, I have.

Please stop not lying.

[homersapien 11,353]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is exactly how it will play out, because it is already happening in “liberal” states.  Banning “assault rifles” which is hard enough, but lets say it’s defined as magazine fed, semi automatic rifles.  Then mass shootings continue to happen, because we are not addressing the root causes, except now with handguns. I’m places like schools, just as much damage can be done with handguns.   As a matter of fact, less than 3% of all gun homicides use a rifle - that is ALL rifles.  So let’s just assume that 100% of rifles used in homicides are “Assault Rifles” (which is a significant misnomer, as the civilian variants we are discussing are not select fire), you are barely scratching the surface.  See where the next steps go?   
 

As for you psychiatric evaluations - this sounds like a great idea on the surface, as do “red flag” laws, until you really start thinking about how they can (and will) be abused.  

"Assault rifles" are hardly difficult to define.  Automatic fire capability is a red herring (as well as cosmetic features). 

Even if your typical assault rifle was converted to be capable of full auto (easy to do), semi-auto mode is at least as effective - if not more so - to kill a school full of panicked children. The point is to kill them one by one, not to suppress return fire.  Aimed semi-auto fire is the most efficient way to do that and you would be far less likely to run out of full magazines before they're all dead. 

So making a big deal about the lack of full auto is a moot point when it comes to the capability of these weapons for such use as a mass school shooting. Presumably - as an Army Ranger - you already know that. 

I understand your point that "just as much damage can be done with handguns" or shotguns.  But they don't fire the same sort of high speed ammo that inflicts extreme ballistic shock damage as a (presumably) 5.56 round fired at close range.

I saw where some of these kids needed to have their identity confirmed with DNA. I suspect they didn't want the parents to see their kids after being shot at close range with an AR15.

If you were a cop, which would you rather face - a pistol or an assault rifle?

The problem is we are awash in these weapons.  The manufacturers can't sell enough of them ($$$) - and never will - thanks to our insane gun culture.*  We are the only country that experiences such mass shootings on a regular basis.

*(Which, btw, I grew up and participated in until I got older, wiser and discovered other toys to enjoy while stroking my ego, like motorcycles and sports cars.)

I have no desire to deprive you or anyone else of your shooting hobby. (Although I do get tired of hearing my neighbors back yard shooting range. But that's the price of living in the country I suppose.) 

But we need to start treating the marketing of guns - especially military grade weapons - with more regulations and control than we do now where an 18 year old kid can simply buy what he wants. (The male  mind doesn't typically fully mature until his mid-20's.  We also need to get serious about addressing mental health, and double down on enforcing "red-flag" laws. 

Otherwise, I see no reason to think this will ever stop.

Thanks for your service.

 

 

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Please stop not lying.

Please stop denying facts. 

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Assault rifles" are hardly difficult to define.  Automatic fire capability is a red herring (as well as cosmetic features). 

Even if your typical assault rifle was converted to be capable of full auto (easy to do), semi-auto mode is at least as effective - if not more so - to kill a school full of panicked children. The point is to kill them one by one, not to suppress return fire.  Aimed semi-auto fire is the most efficient way to do that and you would be far less likely to run out of full magazines before they're all dead. 

So making a big deal about the lack of full auto is a moot point when it comes to the capability of these weapons for such use as a mass school shooting. Presumably - as an Army Ranger - you already know that. 

I understand your point that "just as much damage can be done with handguns" or shotguns.  But they don't fire the same sort of high speed ammo that inflicts extreme ballistic shock damage as a (presumably) 5.56 round fired at close range.

I saw where some of these kids needed to have their identity confirmed with DNA. I suspect they didn't want the parents to see their kids after being shot at close range with an AR15.

If you were a cop, which would you rather face - a pistol or an assault rifle?

The problem is we are awash in these weapons.  The manufacturers can't sell enough of them ($$$) - and never will - thanks to our insane gun culture.*  We are the only country that experiences such mass shootings on a regular basis.

*(Which, btw, I grew up and participated in until I got older, wiser and discovered other toys to enjoy while stroking my ego, like motorcycles and sports cars.)

I have no desire to deprive you or anyone else of your shooting hobby. (Although I do get tired of hearing my neighbors back yard shooting range. But that's the price of living in the country I suppose.) 

But we need to start treating the marketing of guns - especially military grade weapons - with more regulations and control than we do now where an 18 year old kid can simply buy what he wants. (The male  mind doesn't typically fully mature until his mid-20's.  We also need to get serious about addressing mental health, and double down on enforcing "red-flag" laws. 

Otherwise, I see no reason to think this will ever stop.

Thanks for your service.

 

 

You are both correct and incorrect.  Actual assault rifles do have select fire capability.  The context / misuse of the term by the media, and subsequently the general population would clearly apply to semi automatic only weapons.  This is why, earlier in this thread, I assumed the definition would be all semi automatic, magazine fed weapons - which is a huge percentage of the rifles sold.   
 

I also completely agree with you in that semi automatic fire is typically much more effective than full auto or burst.  I disagree that an assault rifle is any more dangerous than a handgun at the ranges school shootings take place.  A handgun inside of 25 yards has plenty of ballistic energy to be lethal against people. 
 

As to your question about which I would rather face as a cop, to be honest, a pistol, hands down every time.  But that is in large part due to the fact that police officers wear body armor that can more easily handle pistol rounds.  I have never tried to say that a pistol does as much damage as a rifle - what I did say is that the capability of a pistol is more than adequate to produce the same results.  
 

I am glad you have found ways to bring you joy while “stroking your ego”.  Firearms can certainly be a hobby for some and merely a tool for others.  Your claim as to getting “older and wiser” is merely your opinion.  
 

You absolutely are trying to deny many people of shooting hobbies, but that not really the topic at play here.  The main issues at play revolve around Constitutional Rights and self defense.  
 

I’ve said before that I am not opposed to raising the age of “legal adult” in our country to 21.  This should apply to firearms, voting, parental consent, etc.  I think “adulthood” should be waaivered / granted at 18 for military service.  
 

I also completely agree with you about mental health - we need to get beyond the tool being used and figure out what is CAUSING the issues.  It is not a gun lobby that advocates gun safety, or marketing endeavors that some people think have the objective of putting themselves out of business.  
 

If you watched the interview with Dan Crenshaw earlier in this thread, he summed up the concerns with Red Flag laws perfectly.   Trying to enforce a law BEFORE it has been broken is very difficult.   If someone is making threats of violence, which would trigger a red flag law - why aren’t they being charged with Simple Assault, which is already a crime?   If someone is that mentally disturbed that it would trigger a red flag law, why aren’t they involuntarily committed?   We don’t need MORE laws, we need BETTER enforcement of EXISTING laws.   And have real consequences for breaking them.  We allow too many people to violate the laws with little or no accountability for it.  
 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

No you missed my point, which is:  an AR15 as bought by civilians in this country is an "assault rifle", even though it is not capable (as purchased) of fully automatic fire. 

This lack of full auto capability is a moot point, as it possesses all of the relevant characteristics that make it an assault rifle, particularly in regards quick detachable, high capacity magazines full of military grade ammo. An AR15 us just as lethal as an M4 so I am not interested in trying to make a distinction when there isn't one.

There are other semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines such as Ruger's 10/22.  I wouldn't define that as an assault rifle, because of the caliber.  But any semi-auto firing the equivalent of military ammunition  30-06, .308, 5.56, .270, etc. with a quickly detachable, large capacity (5+ or more rounds) is effectively an assault rifle for the sake of debating gun regulations.

I am all for more effective and aggressive execution of existing gun laws but that sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?  Current "background checks are a joke.  And many - if not most - existing regulations are simply inadequate,as evidenced by 18 year-olds buying these guns along with large quantities of ammo.

As for constitutional rights and self-defense, those are weak arguments for allowing the sort of proliferation of assault rifles we have. The second amendment was written when state of the art for even military weapons were muzzle loader muskets and rifles.  And no one wants to acknowledge the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment.  The idea the constitution guarantees a right to possess and/or carry any gun one pleases is cultural myth. (Thus the restrictions on fully automatic weapons.) 

And shotguns or pistols are far better for "self defense".  They are far less likely to penetrate walls of your own home (as well as your neighbor's homes) or injure someone a mile away.  

Assault rifles are called "assault" rifles for a reason. That's what they were designed for.   The fact they are so prolific reveals the nature of our gun culture, which reflects more on human psychology, instead of any real need.

I appreciate we aren't going to agree on this, so I suppose we'll just have to live with the status quo. 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

22 hours ago, GoAU said:

Please stop denying facts. 

And, another lie.  I have no respect for you.

[GoAU 1,599]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

No you missed my point, which is:  an AR15 as bought by civilians in this country is an "assault rifle", even though it is not capable (as purchased) of fully automatic fire. 

This lack of full auto capability is a moot point, as it possesses all of the relevant characteristics that make it an assault rifle, particularly in regards quick detachable, high capacity magazines full of military grade ammo. An AR15 us just as lethal as an M4 so I am not interested in trying to make a distinction when there isn't one.

There are other semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines such as Ruger's 10/22.  I wouldn't define that as an assault rifle, because of the caliber.  But any semi-auto firing the equivalent of military ammunition  30-06, .308, 5.56, .270, etc. with a quickly detachable, large capacity (5+ or more rounds) is effectively an assault rifle for the sake of debating gun regulations.

I am all for more effective and aggressive execution of existing gun laws but that sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?  Current "background checks are a joke.  And many - if not most - existing regulations are simply inadequate,as evidenced by 18 year-olds buying these guns along with large quantities of ammo.

As for constitutional rights and self-defense, those are weak arguments for allowing the sort of proliferation of assault rifles we have. The second amendment was written when state of the art for even military weapons were muzzle loader muskets and rifles.  And no one wants to acknowledge the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment.  The idea the constitution guarantees a right to possess and/or carry any gun one pleases is cultural myth. (Thus the restrictions on fully automatic weapons.) 

And shotguns or pistols are far better for "self defense".  They are far less likely to penetrate walls of your own home (as well as your neighbor's homes) or injure someone a mile away.  

Assault rifles are called "assault" rifles for a reason. That's what they were designed for.   The fact they are so prolific reveals the nature of our gun culture, which reflects more on human psychology, instead of any real need.

I appreciate we aren't going to agree on this, so I suppose we'll just have to live with the status quo. 

 

 

If you re-read my post, I was acknowledging that select fire, while technically the definition isn’t what anyone is talking about here.  
 

inwould hard let consider a constitutional right, or the right to self defense as weak arguments.  That’s really what’s at stake.   I absolutely will acknowledge the “well regulated militia” as long as you acknowledge the commas and their  meanings in the amendment.  Another key part of that phrase is it specifically says the “right of the PEOPLE” to keep and bear arms, and not the right of the militia.   
 

I don’t think anyone is saying “whatever gun we please”.  There is a line, and it has been drawn.  Heck, if you are worried about the intent of the founding fathers at the time it was written James Madison argued in favor of private owner of cannons.  
 

As for enforcing urgent laws - Brandon can start off his gun control push by prosecuting his son for illegally buying a handgun. 
 

I agree that neither of us are likely going to persuade the other on disarming law a binding citizens (in whole or part), but can we agree with more funding for school security, mental health improvements, and guarding our schools as we would an airport?  The TSA improvements seem to have worked, or at least improved the situation 

[GoAU 1,599]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

And, another lie.  I have no respect for you.

I’m crushed….  

[GoAU 1,599]

Hmm, now Biden sets his sights on handguns too.  Targeting the 9mm handgun and saying they should be “banned”.  Between the 5.56 / .223 and the 9mm he is targeting the most popular rifle and pistol rounds in the country.  
 

I should say that I’m suprised but some of his less than lucid comments like this one:

They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," Biden said. 

But of course he probably isn’t aware that an AR 15 uses a .22 caliber bullet   Even more importantly, if you are using a handgun for self defense, enough terminal ballistics to immediately end the threat is what you want   Maybe he should have his security detail use a less powerful round - like his infamous double barrel shotgun?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-9mm-guns-texas-uvalde-mass-shooting

[homersapien 11,353]

20 hours ago, GoAU said:

If you re-read my post, I was acknowledging that select fire, while technically the definition isn’t what anyone is talking about here.  
 

inwould hard let consider a constitutional right, or the right to self defense as weak arguments.  That’s really what’s at stake.   I absolutely will acknowledge the “well regulated militia” as long as you acknowledge the commas and their  meanings in the amendment.  Another key part of that phrase is it specifically says the “right of the PEOPLE” to keep and bear arms, and not the right of the militia.   
 

I don’t think anyone is saying “whatever gun we please”.  There is a line, and it has been drawn.  Heck, if you are worried about the intent of the founding fathers at the time it was written James Madison argued in favor of private owner of cannons.  
 

As for enforcing urgent laws - Brandon can start off his gun control push by prosecuting his son for illegally buying a handgun. 
 

I agree that neither of us are likely going to persuade the other on disarming law a binding citizens (in whole or part), but can we agree with more funding for school security, mental health improvements, and guarding our schools as we would an airport?  The TSA improvements seem to have worked, or at least improved the situation 

My my, what hyperbolic rhetoric.

I own a Remington 870 in 12 ga.  (w/ a bandoleer of buckshot), a BAR in .270 and a 38 caliber pistol.

I  certainly don't feel "disarmed" by not owning an assault rifle any more than I feel disarmed by not owning a Thompson. 

And the latter was "banned" (from mass marketing) in 1934 for the exact same reason we should ban assault rifles today, so there's legal precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/26/fdr-machine-gun-control-dillinger/

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

They say a picture can be worth a thousand words…

 

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

My my, what hyperbolic rhetoric.

I own a Remington 870 in 12 ga.  (w/ a bandoleer of buckshot), a BAR in .270 and a 38 caliber pistol.

I  certainly don't feel "disarmed" by not owning an assault rifle any more than I feel disarmed by not owning a Thompson. 

And the latter was "banned" (from mass marketing) in 1934 for the exact same reason we should ban assault rifles today, so there's legal precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/26/fdr-machine-gun-control-dillinger/

 

Thompson’s aren’t banned, they can still be bought.  Semi automatic models exist, and if you fill out the tax stamp info you can still get them in full auto (for a very hefty price).  
 

I’m glad you don’t feel disarmed - that and $6.00 will buy you a gallon of gas.  When you are anointed King, that will mean something.  Thankfully the rest of us will follow the Constitution.  
 

You would be horribly outgunned in many shooting competitions,  and some (but not all) self defense situations.   if you have the tools you want, that’s good for you, but gives you no basis to judge others.  

 

 

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

They say a picture can be worth a thousand words…

 

That Common sense individuals can block out the noise of the mindless drones who want to surrender the rights of themselves and others for a false sense of security???

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

That Common sense individuals can block out the noise of the mindless drones who want to surrender the rights of themselves and others for a false sense of security???

No, can’t say those are the words I was thinking of. 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Uvalde police dept., Uvalde ISD both no longer cooperating with investigation

My mind goes many unpleasant places with this...I don't know what else to add.

[GoAU 1,599]

15 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

No, can’t say those are the words I was thinking of. 

Oh, C'mon - you know that's exactly what you were thinking. (Sarcasm)

Edited June 1, 2022 by GoAU

[GoAU 1,599]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/uvalde-school-shooting-hero-border-patrol-agent-speaks-complete-chaos-rushing-save-students

 

So, as we learn more about Uvalde, some key points:

1) Good guy with gun, not the police, ended the situation.  Yes, the hero (not using that word lightly at all) was a Border Patrol agent, he was not on duty and used a borrowed gun

2) I would place a large wager on the fact that had the barber had an AR and a Shotgun,  the hero would have used the AR, but he went with what he had.  
 

3) Under the current phrasing of most Universal Background Check laws, the barber could be prosecuted for lining a gun to someone.  
 

4) There was not an armed officer at the school. Shots were fired prior to entering the school.  Had an officer been present, he/she could likely have assumed a defensive position and prevented the shooter from enter the school or a classroom 

5) The school was not secured.  Whether you go with the door was propped open story or not, no one is disputing it wasn’t locked.   
 

What can be done that would have actually made a difference here, short of violating the rights of a nation:

1) Armed security at the school.  We have it at banks, at airports, guarding our politicians and movie stars - why not protect our children?  Not getting into teachers carrying, fund SROs. 
2) Secure the schools - no brainer.  
3) Actually learn from the past.  In an active shooter situation- no waiting, get into the fight immediately.  Fund law enforcement to train better. 

[aubiefifty 16,706]

i see no one wants to discuss the marine shooting instructor's video i posted. i agree with everything he said. i think that well regulated milita has been taken badly out of context. so i will try again.

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by aubiefifty
mistake

[GoAU 1,599]

50 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i see no one wants to discuss the marine shooting instructor's video i posted. i agree with everything he said. i think that well regulated milita has been taken badly out of context. so i will try again.

 

I’ll give you my thoughts.   The guy is a jackass.  Yes, he served and is a veteran. He is also correct with regards to military weapons qualifications and storage.    I don’t get the whole 2 week things, but in the Army we qualified every 6 months.  However, you didn’t have to qualify to use a rifle.  Soldiers had to demonstrate marksmanship proficiency- safe handling of weapons is understood.  You relinquish all sorts of rights in the military - I don’t think anyone would be up for adopting the full lifestyle and to pick in choose bits and pieces is intellectually dishonest.  
 

Do you have to “qualify” a reasonable level of intelligence to exercise First Amendment rights?  How about basic literacy and education on exercising the right to vote?   
 

Regarding the misinformation about the “well regulated militia” please see below:

The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment

By Kari Sullivan on July 14, 2021Categories: Corpus Linguistics, Scholarship, Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18^th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation. When we read Shakespeare, for example, we accept that we have to rely on footnotes about vocabulary and syntax. The language of the Bill of Rights is chronologically closer to Shakespeare’s English than to present-day English, so the words and syntax are not always going to be immediately comprehensible.

The Second Amendment seems especially confusing because its structure has been subject to syntactic change, not just changes to words or word meanings. Words change faster and more frequently than syntax, so they are easier to notice. As we get older, we notice young people using words in new and different ways, whereas we probably are not aware of many differences in their syntax. But when we look at Shakespeare’s English, for example, we can see that syntax does change. If something seems ungrammatical to us, that is a signal that we need to look at how the grammar was used by native speakers.

The Second Amendment consists of a subordinate clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, followed by a main clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The main clause sounds perfectly grammatical in present-day English (if we ignore the extra comma, which does not seem to have been significant). The subordinate clause with being,however, seems to have something wrong with it. This is because the being-clause precedes the main clause, and the two clauses have different subjects. The last example of this type in the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; a 475-million-word balanced corpus of American English 1820—2019) is from 1923. Since this type of being-clause fell into disuse around a hundred years ago, it is reasonable that modern readers would not have good intuitions about its grammaticality or its meaning.

In order to understand a syntactic construction that we no longer use, we have to look at historical examples of the construction. A good resource for this is a balanced historical corpus, that is, a collection of texts from a particular timespan and region that consists of a balanced mix of personal letters, newspapers, scientific treatises, religious texts and so forth. These corpora are intended to provide an idea of general usage at particular times and places. Relevant balanced corpora for studying the Second Amendment include COHA, mentioned previously, or A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER; 3.3 million words, 1600—1999). These corpora can tell us how being-clauses changed over time. They can also show how being-clauses were used, so that modern readers have a better idea of how this grammatical construction shapes the meaning of the Second Amendment.

For the moment, let us consider only being-clauses with the basic structure of the Second Amendment, in which the being-clause precedes the main clause and has a different subject. (A wider range of being-clauses is examined in my paper “Being-clauses in historical corpora and the U.S. Second Amendment”.) Being-clauses of this type have had four possible meanings, several of which could overlap. First, they could signal that the event in the being-clause happened before the main clause event, as in this example from 1723: The morning being come and breakfast over, Stertorius’s coach was brought. That is, after morning came and breakfast was over, the coach was brought. This is called a temporal usage. It is the earliest kind of being-clause, and gave rise to the second and third types.

The second use of being-clauses, the conditional, has always been rare. Conditional being-clauses were used to make predictions, as in the following example from 1786: These things being granted what is of a like kind will readily be so disposed too. If the ‘things’ (atmospheric conditions) occur, then ‘what is of a like kind’ (condensation) is predicted to behave in a particular way. Temporal and conditional meanings can overlap, as in the last two clauses in this 1833 example: Increase the amount of Bank notes, and, other things being the same, prices will rise. Whenever other things are the same, this statement claims, prices will rise (a temporal meaning); and if things are the same, prices will rise (a conditional meaning). These clauses are related temporally and conditionally, and the temporal and conditional meanings are completely compatible.

The third use of being-clauses also evolved from temporals, and could likewise overlap with them. These being-clauses signalled real-world causation, as in this sentence from 1780: The usual passages for the waters below being obstructed, they flooded the low grounds. That is, flooding occurred because the passages were obstructed. This is an external causal because it refers to a cause and a consequence in the real world. It’s important to note that an external causal relation frequently assumes a temporal one. In the above example, the flooding happens because of the obstruction (a causal relation) but also happens at the time of the obstruction (a temporal relation), so both causal and temporal relations are present, and are compatible with each other.

The fourth type of meaning is an internal causal, where the being-clause provides the logical basis, not the real-world cause, for the main clause, as in this example from 1702: The words in the will being to Richard and the heirs of his body, the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. Here, the being-clause gives the reason for concluding the status of the heirs stated in the main clause. The main clause could be paraphrased by it was concluded that the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. An external causal can never be paraphrased this way, and it was concluded that the waters flooded the low grounds would make no sense in the external causal above.

If we assume that the Second Amendment was grammatical, then its being-clause belonged to one of these four types or a documented area of overlap between them. The temporal reading would indicate that whenever “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A conditional interpretation would entail that if “A well regulated Militia” is ever “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The external causal interpretation would mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” for the purpose of “A well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State”. The internal causal would indicate that because it is known that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, it is concluded that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The temporal, external causal, and internal causal readings are not equally likely. The ARCHER corpus, for example, contains 37 being-clauses of the relevant type from the second half of the 18^th century. Of these, 18 have purely temporal meanings without conditional or causal inferences; 1 is a conditional; 19 have external causal meanings; and there are no internal causals. Statistically, then, the temporal and external causal interpretations of the Second Amendment are the most probable.

In the context of the Second Amendment, these two interpretations are not incompatible. We have seen that external causal meanings often assume temporal ones, since effects usually happen along with their causes. Both a temporal and a causal reading would assert that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” whenever a militia was “necessary to the security of a free State”. The causal reading would additionally assert that the “right” was for the purpose of the necessary militia, and therefore applied whenever the militia was necessary.

A temporal or causal relation between the clauses would mean that the main-clause content was temporally or causally contingent on the being-clause content, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” would only be asserted when, or for the purpose of, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Interpreting the main clause while ignoring the being-clause would be nonsensical, and certainly contrary to the original intent or understanding of the two clauses.

Of course, understanding the relation between the clauses does nothing to answer the question of how often a “A well regulated Militia” was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free State” and consequently how often “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Perhaps such a militia was thought to be a permanent necessity, in which case the right to bear arms for that purpose would be perpetual. This is an issue for historians, not linguists. It is also a matter of debate as to whether the founders’ opinions on this issue outweigh those of present-day theorists, who might disagree on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”. This is an issue for legal scholars. However, the history of being-clauses does suggest that the applicability of the Second Amendment’s main clause was temporally and potentially causally contingent on the necessity of the “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”, which may delimit the reasonable range of debate for theorists in other areas. Recognition of this clausal relation may also be helpful for interpreting words and collocations that have been the subject of debate, such as militia and bear arms, since the context of these items would have played a role in disambiguating their meaning.

This linguistic history also makes it clear that the Second Amendment was grammatical and probably unambiguous at the time of its writing. The Bill of Rights, like Shakespeare’s plays, was not badly written. We can blame our incomprehension on the ongoing process of language change – and perhaps on present-day speakers who fail to acknowledge it.
 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

[AU9377 4,914]

A step in a sensible direction would be to re-institute the 1994 assault weapons ban.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

[AU9377 4,914]

As much as I hate to do it, Wikipedia actually has the best breakdown of what the AWB included and the hundreds of exceptions that it contained. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[GoAU 1,599]

It was unconstitutional/ illegal then, and is unconstitutional / illegal now.  We can ban our way to almost complete safety if you are ok with living in a society that closely resembles a prison.  
 

A reasonable place to start is to keep criminals in jail, secure our schools properly, quit stringing out our kids on psychotropic drugs, and try to reinstitute some morality.  
 

In the spirit of compromise I would agree with raising the age of legal adult status (buying guns, tobacco, voting) etc to 21, unless the individual is serving in the military on active duty.  If we can’t trust kids at 18 to be adults, they shouldn’t be afforded any of the privileges.