re: How do so many Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment?

quote:

---

No. Because I know you are wrong.

---

You do? Then I'm sure you have some factual evidence to back this up?

quote:

---

It don't matter. People only believe what their chosen media feeds them.

---

Oh the irony.

quote:

---

There were no semi automatic guns before the 19th century.

---

Wrong.

quote:

---

Semi. Not single shot. Not multiple barrel. Semi.

---

What is you definition of semi?

quote:

---

You can't disprove that.

---

Others, to include DB, already have.

quote:

---

I will be shocked if you actually back your point up.

---

See above.

So what is the argument you are trying to make?

Thanks man.

It's amazing how you have kept yourself alive this long. You must be really good at reminding yourself to breathe.

You seriously defended a position that because "semi-auto" weapons existed at a point in time, that means founding fathers were aware of where we would be on the gun issue.

But they decided against abolishing slavery or flat out avoided the issue altogether bc they didn't see Africans as more than property. So we kept slavery another 100 years.

How you people cling to the 2A to defend something that 90% of you say is no more damaging than a pistol or shotgun baffles me. Stop saying the 2A is a right to keep any type of weapon. This was shot down at every avenue during the AWB. Stick to saying that you want them around bc you love the weapon or that it won't solve our problem. Stop using the 2A to defend it however. It makes no sense.

Easy, the single shot musket was the "assault rifle" of the day and people could carry them, train with them, use them in the militia, to hunt and for self-defense. The fact that the founding fathers cannot imagine a semi-auto rifle is irrelevant, could they imagine an iPad, yet the 1st still applies to what you write on it. The basis of the 2A is a right fundamentally granted to the American people exclusively for any reason that a rifle, a contemporary military weapon to be used for.

Regardless of what part you defend, even you have to believe the founding fathers had no thought about semi-automatic weapons when drafting the BOR. Most judges see it that way. It's why any chance of using that argument during the AWB was shot down. It would be today as well.

quote:

---

Regardless of what part you defend, even you have to believe the founding fathers had no thought about semi-automatic weapons when drafting the BOR. Most judges see it that way. It's why any chance of using that argument during the AWB was shot down.

---

Oh how ignorant you are little child.

quote:

---

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016 PER CURIAM.

The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason. Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

---

You just keep clinging to your ignorance child.