Today you can buy a slave on the open market in Libya,a real one,slavery has been abolished for over 100 years but it still exists,you can change all you want but you will not change anything.
Genocide is illegal but it is happening everyday.
Now you are getting into intent,the basis of every legal argument when laws are written.
When the founding fathers wrote -The right to bear arms - was the intent to only bear arms of the day or was the intent when using that choice of words was that it did not matter what type of “arms” because the word “arms” covers any weapon.
The founding fathers were well aware of advancements in firearms,they had already seen it,so they did not specify “the right to bear muskets” they used the word “arms “ because what they were writing was going to be carried on for generations to come,advancements in weaponry would follow,so they used the catch all phrase of “arms”
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...2nd-amendment/
You wrote “ my big problem is these are the kinds of weapons the founding father were thinking,not AR15 or Glocks “
It does not matter by definition of the word “arms” ,which can actually be traced back before even the founding fathers implemented it.
arm
3 of 5
noun [[2)
often attributive
1
a: a means [[such as a weapon) of offense or defenseespecially : FIREARM
b: a combat branch [[as of an army)
c: an organized branch of national defense [[such as the navy)
If you hear references on the news to "the arms race" or "arms exports," you know the subject is guns, bombs, bullets, and other weapons and ammunition. Any country with an army has some quantity of arms that can be used for self defense or military actions. In 1300, it was armes, "weapons of a warrior," from the Latin arma, "weapons," and also "tools of war."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/arms
bear arms
Even though you guys call weapons assault rifles which by definition an assault rifle has the ability to go from fully automatic to semiautomatic and nobody has actually used a fully automatic capable assault rifle in any school shooting by definition an actual assault rifle would qualify under the definition of arms as a tool of war all the way back to the 1300s.
Just because something looks like it is a weapon of war,it does not classify it as one.
.45 caliber pistols were used as sidearms in wartime.
Bow and arrow was used in war times
Swords
knifes
spears
moltive cocktail was a weapon of war
In a world that was at war for centuries,anything that can be used to kill or maim was a weapon of war.
Not for nothing but if somebody is that motivated to shoot up a classroom,without a firearm,they can destroy an entire class room and everybody in it by using common household products.
So you fight this battle to remove firearms or restrict their accessibility but that will never remove the intent from a highly motivated individual looking to do harm.
They will find another way and there are a lot more ways where a lot more deaths can occur faster then with a firearm.
When it gets to that point,the system has already failed and the actual firearm is the end result,removing the firearm is not going to change the end result.
It just makes people think they are doing something when they are not.
I do not think anybody can argue that these ones doing the shootings are not screwed up in the head,but that requires dealing with mental health care,that cost money,it does not cost anything to oppose guns.
There has been changed though,nobody has been able to buy a fully automatic weapon sense 1986,those things you guys call weapons of war,they can trade them through private party though.
A fully automatic AR15 shoots 700-900 rounds per minute and it takes 5 seconds to empty a 30 round magazine.
That would be $60 -$90 every 5 seconds, it’s not even practical to use an “assault “ weapon in a school shooting and you would definitely be reading reports of thousands of shell casings found after the shooting.
So can we start by at least being honest in a discussion when it actually comes to choice of weapon?
Do not be fooled by the movies where you see them shooting fully automatic for 10 minutes without reloading,I would be less nervous about being confronted with a fully automatic weapon verses a semi automatic because they cannot control accuracy and they have to stop and reload every five seconds,which gives windows of opportunity.