*** laws : what would you accept ?

[eponymous]

If this isn't something of a problem solving exercise, then why have you already moved to proposed solutions?

I haven't proposed a single solution - yet. I'm still trying to find a point of agreement on the notion that sensible restrictions on purchasing firearms reduce public risk without ********* the rights of law-abiding *** owners. If we can't agree on this point, we'll never get to the problem-solving stage because we'll just dispute facts the entire time.

I think "assault weapons" are a distraction, as the data shows that they contribute little or nothing to the issue of *** ******** in America.

I have never disputed the fact that handguns are used in nearly all ***-related violent crime.

But they do provide some sex appeal. And that's (IMO) why people remain fixated on them when there are discussions on this topic

I don't find them sexy at all, and I'm perfectly willing to stop talking about them. In fact, I can't get anyone off the subject now, despite the fact that I only introduced them to show that the slippery slope argument is bunk.

What you take as a fixation on assault weapons on my part is in fact an attempt to establish that there is needless risk associated with some weapons. I'm being tarred and feathered for making this suggestion, despite the fact that it's basic common sense. You wouldn't store TNT in your freezer, so why leave a Street Sweeper in reach of a 9-yr old? Everybody's answer, so far, is that you wouldn't. But I can't even get people to admit that you shouldn't. It's common sense. Some things are dangerous. We can decide later which ones we want to identify as such.

No need to make this more complicated than it is. What is the issue? What are the primary contributors? What does the data show us about those contributors and the population? Leave the emotion and the tears at the door and get to work.

Now that's a straw man argument, because I never tugged on anybody's heart strings, cried incessantly "Will somebody PLEASE think of the ********!" or any of that crap.

But I think you'll find it is a complicated issue, precisely because there is no one issue. Primary contributors, Population statistics, not to mention cultural & socio-economic factors, etc. Yes, this is indeed complicated, which is why we need a starting point.

Firearms fall under many categories and some are special purpose. And yep, some are nothing more than cheap, inaccurate pieces of junk. I am not here to try to trick you into believing that all guns are entirely "practical" (even in the broadest sense of the word). What I am saying is, a great many of the ones which have been tagged as "assault weapons" are anything but. It is a misnomer used by those who are unfamiliar with firearms, and it is also used by the *** industry to "sexy up" their (mundane) offerings to get gullible rubes to buy them - these things have rather incredible markups on them right now.

Then again, let's stop talking about them. Please, for the love of God, let's stop talking about them. But at some point, I'd like more details about which guns aren't practical, and I'd like to know if anyone believes that it would truly ******* someone's constitutional rights if those particular weapons were made *******.

You seem familiar with the last crime bill which ****** "assault weapons." Does it not strike you as odd that by simply removing the flash hider or bayonet lug, replacing the stock and ****** grip with a thumbhole stock and fitting a (still) detachable 10 round mag that the dangerous "assault weapon" suddenly became a socially acceptable "hunting rifle"??? It was exactly the same weapon as it was before. But people like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who don't know a shotgun from a pellet rifle, helped write that dandy of a bill... so all you ended up with were a small number of weapons being ****** outright and a great many others getting cosmetic overhauls which did not change the character of the weapon one iota...It was a feel good, bread & circuses bill. At the national level, on both sides, it's so clear why nothing effective happens in D.C. these days.

Like all laws ****** in our PAC-centered modern legislative era, I'm sure the bill started out banning all kinds of things, but ended up as a complete absurdity once all the special interests went to work on it.

Here again is why we have to start somewhere instead of allowing ourselves to be consumed with minutiae. At some point, we should attempt to clearly define "assault weapon," and if it's a distinction without a difference, we'll attempt to classify guns in some other way.

And yes, of course something is always greater than nothing. But in terms of the effort needed to get that particular something versus something else, how much are you willing to spend? I would suggest a better, proper cost/benefit analysis before people react with emotion and wind up with a Pyrrhic victory on this issue. That's all.

Pyrrhic Victory? Look, just as I was attempting to start somewhere, I didn't see that starting point as the end point either. Your questions here are open-ended and casuistical. A victory would imply something has been won, which it hasn't. Not a battle, and certainly not a culture war.

Premium Link Upgrade

I'd spend my time at the far left of this pareto. It seems that you're trying to rationalize why you'd spend your time at the far right. Yes, I understand picking a starting point. But that starting point doesn't have free entry. Think about it.

Yeah, no offense, but you must still have been hitting the eggnog when you added this. I'm not quite sure what this chart has to do with our present discussion, but a Pareto analysis implies that 20% of something causes the other 80% to occur. In a discussion that focuses heavily on statistics, I'm not sure we want to (how did Scott put it?) "muddy the waters" with a bedrock assumption that 20% of the ***-owning public causes 80% of the crime. And as you pointed out, the incidence of crime that is committed using so-called "assault" weapons is significantly lower indeed than 20%.

So what do you think is the central starting point of a discussion regarding *** ******** in this country?

 

[eponymous]

Start with Rey C.'s posts above which you conveniently avoided. Start there.

Merry Christmas

You may continue telling me that I'm the one avoiding all the issues here, but as your posts get shorter and shorter and offer less and less substance (to say nothing of the specific recommendations you promised) it's increasingly clear that you're the one avoiding the conversation. Maybe that's because it's Christmas and you'll come back to it later, but so far, your trend has been:

1. To call anyone an idiot who disagrees with you (although the substance of that disagreement you will not expound upon), and
2. To ****** other people's character once you're challenged to provide something substantial of your own.

I'm not the one who's preventing this discussion from proceeding beyond the wildly ridiculous phase.

 

[Shifty]

You nitwit, it is posted right above you. You implied my solution was to "arm everybody."

Seriously, what got the ants in your pants, the fact that I believe in the Second Amendment and a law-abiding American's right to own a firearm, or the fact that I question the sincerity of some of the condolences of our neighbors of the world regarding shootings here.

I said, "And apparently, the solution is to arm everybody."

I was referring to a statement made by an influential group in your country who share your views on guns. Should I break down the rest of that post for you?

Actually, a fair portion of your nation and much of the world has ants in it's pants over this issue if you haven't noticed.

The point is that you don't need automatic weapons, you just want them. It's that simple.

The condolences offered by your 'neighbors of the world' are substantially more meaningful and heartfelt than the revolting and tone deaf sentiments offered by this aforementioned influential group.

Why? Because the condolences of the world are motivated by profound pain, loss and grief.

The sentiments of the aforementioned influential group are only about maintaining influence and the status quo.

 

[eponymous]

The only one deflecting is you. You said:


It doesn't get any more clear than that. I didn't need to make my point, you made it for me with your very own post. Don't respond to me again. I'm done (in this thread at least) responding to you. Besides, Rey left ample evidence above for you to try to further deflect (good luck with that though as he's one of the most intelligent posters on this board - which is probably why you sidestepped his previous posts entirely.)

Good day to you and merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you as well. I hope you find some cheer and actually want to propose some ideas instead of constantly claiming that you don't need to offer any.

And you'll notice I didn't side-step anything, as I replied to Rey in detail and he and I are still engaging in a dialogue, or at least I hope he is still willing to.

 

[eponymous]

...there has been very little discussion in this thread (by *** control advocates) about dealing with criminal behavior and placing a focus on those who are career criminals or belong to criminal enterprises. I am not questioning anyone's motives here. But I do find it interesting that there seems to be this fixation on things and not people...

So far, yes. I've always been frustrated by the left's tendency to focus on the guns, but if you'll notice, I focused on something else (namely certain bedrock principles of risk vs. reward) and the conversation devolved into a Guns 101 lesson on the meaning of "assault" weapon. Not that it isn't worth specifying - obviously it needs to be done because there is so much misunderstanding - but there's a point at which the right commits the redefinist fallacy because the conversation never gets back to certain bedrock principles. This is how the right commits the same error as the left and focuses too much on "the guns."

A plethora of other topics needs to be discussed, including parenting, mental illness, criminal trafficking, related crimes like ***** and a host of other things.

...And who are the people who pose the greatest threat? Established criminals, no?

Let's let the data lead us, as you suggested. The stats will speak for themselves, but I suspect a large number of perpetrators will be found to be non-repeat offenders, a large number of whom are poor, disadvantaged and get caught.

...The once sane, but now whacked out guy who shoots up a school is bad news - no doubt. But he is (largely) an anomaly. But he makes the evening news. He's the sexy story...

I think you believe the left enjoys this a little more than perhaps you should. You keep saying things like "assault rifles are sexy," but I think the vast majority consider a Sandy Hook-type tragedy simply an extreme case. I think the point of the whacked out person who shoots up a school is that if they have easy access to guns (they who are probably incapable of doing a lot of normal things and would clearly be flagged in routine DMV-type situations as being unfit to own a firearm), then there are zero safeguards to prevent smart criminals from obtaining them? Yes, many will obtain them anyway, but why make it easy?

...Don't fall for it, folks. Think! I can (probably) make you feel, but I can't make you think. You don't have to agree with me or anybody else, but think!!!

On this point, we are in total agreement.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

You may continue telling me that I'm the one avoiding all the issues here, but as your posts get shorter and shorter and offer less and less substance (to say nothing of the specific recommendations you promised) it's increasingly clear that you're the one avoiding the conversation.

I'm not going to argue with someone like you who has no idea what they are talking about and who bounces all over the place. All of the issues you've raised and continue to raise have been sufficiently addressed in this thread more times than once.

I said, "And apparently, the solution is to arm everybody."

I was referring to a statement made by an influential group in your country who share your views on guns. Should I break down the rest of that post for you?

Actually, a fair portion of your nation and much of the world has ants in it's pants over this issue if you haven't noticed.

The point is that you don't need automatic weapons, you just want them. It's that simple.

And that's where it ends. Once again folks we have someone here posting on a subject with which they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[eponymous]

I'm not going to argue with someone like you who has no idea what they are talking about and who bounces all over the place. All of the issues you've raised and continue to raise have been sufficiently addressed in this thread more times than once.

Then why don't you teach me, Oh Wise One? Start talking instead of posting will the sole intention of saying nothing at all.

I'm trying very hard not to let this become some kind of personal grudge match where two people can't talk to one another because they can't even find the decency to be civil. I'm sure you're a decent person, but all I'm getting from you is intolerance and spite.

If it helps, forget I'm even here, just contribute something, anything.

 

[Shifty]

And that's where it ends. Once again folks we have someone here posting on a subject with which they have no idea what they are talking about.

BS, have you ever noticed that for themost part intelligent posters (well, except for Ray C apparently as he shares your views) tend to neglect this section of the board?

You play here all day, and you consider yourself a smart person. Because no one debates you.

Once in awhile, someone like me comes and shares a view. And you don't respond!

It's fucking hilarious.

You're a total fucking idiot.

 

[Shifty]

Then why don't you teach me, Oh Wise One? Start talking instead of posting will the sole intention of saying nothing at all.

I'm trying very hard not to let this become some kind of personal grudge match where two people can't talk to one another because they can't even find the decency to be civil. I'm sure you're a decent person, but all I'm getting from you is intolerance and spite.

If it helps, forget I'm even here, just contribute something, anything.

Rey, can you please help BS? He's having a hard time.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

BS, have you ever noticed that for themost part intelligent posters (well, except for Ray C apparently as he shares your views) tend to neglect this section of the board?

You play here all day, and you consider yourself a smart person. Because no one debates you.

Once in awhile, someone like me comes and shares a view. And you don't respond!

It's fucking hilarious.

You're a total fucking idiot.

Are you serious? I very rarely post at all on this board anymore. I only post if I have a fairly decent amount of knowledge on a subject or to have fun. I responded plenty on the issue at hand, so don't try to distort what I have or haven't done. Look on the last page.

And

Stupid, ignorant, inbred motherfucker

?

Is that all you got? Where you from, Shitty, Calgary? Don't think for a second I don't know about Canada and all the redneck motherfuckers up there you little flea. You ignorant uneducated little high-on-your-***** Canuck. Get off my nut sack.

 

[bobjustbob]

Guys, you're problem is not with each other. It is with your elected officials. Did any of you watch the talking head shows this morning? They were blaming violent television, movies, and video games as the cause and putting armed people in schools as a solution. These are the **** heads that are going to shape any policy. Nowhere did they mention criminals or responsible *** ownership. Yea, they mentioned limiting clips to 5 rounds. What is that going to do to a crazy who wants to shoot up a place? It's like saying that people will smoke less if they can only buy 5 cigarette packs. It's just nonsense.

 

[Rey C.]

I haven't proposed a single solution - yet. I'm still trying to find a point of agreement on the notion that sensible restrictions on purchasing firearms reduce public risk without ********* the rights of law-abiding *** owners. If we can't agree on this point, we'll never get to the problem-solving stage because we'll just dispute facts the entire time.

Perhaps an initial point of agreement might be that with better enforcement of the existing laws, firearms related offenses might be less than they are. And if they aren't being enforced or can't be enforced, then why not? You wouldn't write more procedures if you can't/won't enforce the ones you already have, would you? Might help to know if you have some systemic problem there too.

I have never disputed the fact that handguns are used in nearly all ***-related violent crime.

Good. Maybe that's what you should have focused on early on? :dunno:

I don't find them sexy at all, and I'm perfectly willing to stop talking about them. In fact, I can't get anyone off the subject now, despite the fact that I only introduced them to show that the slippery slope argument is bunk.

No one said that you found them sexy. Not every comment that I make is directed specifically toward you. Others read these posts and make comments as well.

What you take as a fixation on assault weapons on my part is in fact an attempt to establish that there is needless risk associated with some weapons. I'm being tarred and feathered for making this suggestion, despite the fact that it's basic common sense. You wouldn't store TNT in your freezer, so why leave a Street Sweeper in reach of a 9-yr old? Everybody's answer, so far, is that you wouldn't. But I can't even get people to admit that you shouldn't. It's common sense. Some things are dangerous. We can decide later which ones we want to identify as such.

I believe that you're the one who said that even though "assault weapons" may only comprise an infinitesimal part of the problem, their impracticality (alone?) should lead us to deal with them in some fashion. Was that not you, or have I confused your post with someone else's?

Now that's a straw man argument, because I never tugged on anybody's heart strings, cried incessantly "Will somebody PLEASE think of the ********!" or any of that crap.

Again, you're making the assumption that everything that I've posted is directed specifically toward you. For instance, when I said, "get to work", you didn't think that I meant for you to quit your job and go lobby on Capitol Hill, did you? Of course not... I hope not (uh, don't quit your job). On this and every board where I've discussed this issue, there has been more than a fair amount of melodramatic, knee-jerk responses. So I felt the need to say that in this forum for all to see. If that becomes confusing, I'll try to do a better job of specifying who said what to whom. Not a problem.

But I think you'll find it is a complicated issue, precisely because there is no one issue. Primary contributors, Population statistics, not to mention cultural & socio-economic factors, etc. Yes, this is indeed complicated, which is why we need a starting point.

And that's fine. I've probably stated in a dozen or more threads that the issue is complicated and mufti-faceted. Defining the specific issue (or relevant subsets of it) might also be a good staring point, because it's quite clear that we're beginning to talk past one another at this point.

Then again, let's stop talking about them. Please, for the love of God, let's stop talking about them. But at some point, I'd like more details about which guns aren't practical, and I'd like to know if anyone believes that it would truly ******* someone's constitutional rights if those particular weapons were made *******.

Sounds good.

As for what is or is not practical... that will likely be an exercise in the subjective. What is practical to me may not be practical to someone else, a *** owner or not. I'd say that we'd have to start by agreeing to a working definition for "practical" in this case.

Like all laws ****** in our PAC-centered modern legislative era, I'm sure the bill started out banning all kinds of things, but ended up as a complete absurdity once all the special interests went to work on it.

Likely. But I have no idea exactly who had their hands in that soup or what they were thinking. I just remember hearing Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer prattling on about how great it was to get passage and then going on to demonstrate their complete and total ignorance of firearms. The Di Feinstein interview on 60 Minutes was a real hoot. I really did get a kick out of that. She surely has a career in stand-up comedy waiting for her when her senatoring days are over. Luckily (hmm...), neither of them shot the other while they were doing their Vulcan mind meld.

Here again is why we have to start somewhere instead of allowing ourselves to be consumed with minutiae. At some point, we should attempt to clearly define "assault weapon," and if it's a distinction without a difference, we'll attempt to classify guns in some other way.

There already is a definition for "assault weapon" (which I thought you didn't want to talk about anymore). The Germans pretty much did the heavy lifting for us on that one about 75 years ago. If people now want to redefine the term, that's up to them.

Pyrrhic Victory? Look, just as I was attempting to start somewhere, I didn't see that starting point as the end point either. Your questions here are open-ended and casuistical. A victory would imply something has been won, which it hasn't. Not a battle, and certainly not a culture war.

If I misunderstood your motives in continuing to focus on "assault weapons" early on, then I apologize. But yes, to focus on something (anything) which is statistically not a major contributor to the issue would likely yield nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory.

Yeah, no offense, but you must still have been hitting the eggnog when you added this. I'm not quite sure what this chart has to do with our present discussion, but a Pareto analysis implies that 20% of something causes the other 80% to occur. In a discussion that focuses heavily on statistics, I'm not sure we want to (how did Scott put it?) "muddy the waters" with a bedrock assumption that 20% of the ***-owning public causes 80% of the crime. And as you pointed out, the incidence of crime that is committed using so-called "assault" weapons is significantly lower indeed than 20%.

No, off the eggnog now. That's not really a good statement of the Pareto Principle, but what the throw-away has to do with this discussion is your focus on something that isn't a major contributor - not really to do with the assumed percentage contributions. Since even you are saying that contribution of "assault weapons" is virtually nil, I questioned why it continued to be a focus. But it sounds like we're over that now. Even here, time was ******. We may have made progress. But I see the same thing happening as the national debate on *** control (posing as crime control) gets going. But we'll see.

Say, wonder what my pal Di-Fi is up to here? Premium Link Upgrade

I guess she didn't get the memo, huh? I enjoy sparring with you. I think you are being relatively sincere. But I also know what game is getting set for action in D.C. Carpe diem!

So what do you think is the central starting point of a discussion regarding *** ******** in this country?

I don't know about the central starting point, but I certainly believe that one starting point, which even the most hardened NRA or GOA member would be willing to participate in, would be determining how criminals and other defective individuals procure firearms now. You can ask even the slickest CEO "why?" 5 times and you'd be surprised at what you can flesh out. Would that not be a good thing to do... actually seeking ways to better enforce laws that are already on the books??? Seems like a good starting point to me. I think I'd start doing that before I started putting more words on more pieces of paper that no one will pay any attention to either. We can do it here. But on The Hill, that's not how it's going to play out. More bullshit. Just more bullshit. It's all they know.

 

[Rey C.]

So far, yes. I've always been frustrated by the left's tendency to focus on the guns, but if you'll notice, I focused on something else (namely certain bedrock principles of risk vs. reward) and the conversation devolved into a Guns 101 lesson on the meaning of "assault" weapon. Not that it isn't worth specifying - obviously it needs to be done because there is so much misunderstanding - but there's a point at which the right commits the redefinist fallacy because the conversation never gets back to certain bedrock principles. This is how the right commits the same error as the left and focuses too much on "the guns."

Well, the OP poll was about *** laws, so it's probably natural that we began talking about guns too. But there's no penalty here at FreeOnes for shifting the discussion.

A plethora of other topics needs to be discussed, including parenting, mental illness, criminal trafficking, related crimes like ***** and a host of other things.

Sounds good. Let's do that.

Let's let the data lead us, as you suggested. The stats will speak for themselves, but I suspect a large number of perpetrators will be found to be non-repeat offenders, a large number of whom are poor, disadvantaged and get caught.

Really?

Premium Link Upgrade

(*If you click that link^^^, you'll be taken to a U.S. Dept. of Justice .pdf on crime stats. It's not a virus or trick, folks.*)

I think you believe the left enjoys this a little more than perhaps you should.

No one said anything about anyone (the left, right or center) enjoying it. I think the media does much of what it does to drive rating$.

You keep saying things like "assault rifles are sexy," but I think the vast majority consider a Sandy Hook-type tragedy simply an extreme case.

Was that the only *** related tragedy involving ******** that's taken place over the past week or so? Why haven't we seen daily news feeds on whoever got shot and ****** in Chicago, Detroit, D.C. or L.A. before or after Sandy Hook??? I don't know who or how many, but I bet there were at least a couple. What's that I hear? Crickets chirping. Time for that Don Henley song again. Sell some papers and some ad time. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

I think the point of the whacked out person who shoots up a school is that if they have easy access to guns (they who are probably incapable of doing a lot of normal things and would clearly be flagged in routine DMV-type situations as being unfit to own a firearm), then there are zero safeguards to prevent smart criminals from obtaining them? Yes, many will obtain them anyway, but why make it easy?

See, this is where the discussion needs to go! Not just *** laws, but what laws should be ****** to make it harder for defective individuals to procure firearms? And what laws should be ****** to make it easier for them to be identified as quickly as possible?

 

[eponymous]

Okay, now we're making some progress. I want to thank you, Rey, for continuing to engage on the issues, and I think we're going to agree on many things. I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to several of your specific rejoinders because that kind of back-and-forth will become unmanageable real fast. Suffice it to say, there are still several things that I think should be clarified, but we are getting somewhere.

So now that we've cleared away much of the rubbish, let's see if we can't continue the positive momentum.

First, let's define the scope of the discussion:

1. We're talking about reducing *** ********. We will accept as an axiom that *** ******** is unacceptably high in the U.S. and that something must be done to reduce the levels of ******** as much as possible.
2. *** legislation (to include enforcement of existing laws as well as the possibility of enacting any new laws) is part of that conversation, but is not the sole focus.
3. For the purposes of this discussion (at least at the outset), we will assume that all guns are identical in terms of lethality. There is no distinction between a single-shot Revolutionary-era Musket and an Uzi, nor will there be any discussion of the differences between fully automatic or semi-automatic weapons, "assault" weapons (however defined), rifles or handguns. For our purposes, a *** is a ***; no *** is capable of ******* more than one person at a time, and no *** is better suited to hunting, sport or self-defense than any other ***. Every *** has exactly one bullet.
4. Banning guns completely is not on the table. It is neither the overt intention, nor the alleged goal or hidden agenda of any restrictions that would be imposed.

Also, let's establish some ground rules:

1. With the exception of #4, above, all options are on the table. We are, after all, just talking here. Nobody's going on a ******* spree tomorrow or imposing a Fascist state because of anything we say here, and considering the extent of *** ******** in this country, all options are worth considering. Anyone who is offended at the mere suggestion of a possible solution they happen to oppose vehemently for personal reasons, should refrain from comment while the pro's and con's of that solution are debated. Once again, we're just talking here.
2. "Liberals," "lefties," "*** control advocates" or however they may be defined, respect the rights of law-abiding *** owners may not accuse the other side of having no respect for human life, being happy that ******** are dead or any of that crap. "Conservatives," "right-wingers," "*** rights supporters" or however they may be defined, respect the rights of law-abiding people who choose not to own guns to be protected by the justice system, and may not accuse the other side of capitalizing on a national tragedy to push their own agenda, looking for any excuse to seize guns or impose a police state or any of that crap.

Do you - and does anyone else, for that matter - find these terms acceptable, and/or what changes would you like to make?

Once we've agreed, we can move on to the first proposed discussion point, which is what laws are currently on the books and why aren't they being enforced? I think we should give some thought to establishing the extent of the problem first, but I'm happy to begin here also.

 

[Sam Fisher]

For those of you who want a society without guns....

One man with a *** can control 100 without one.
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Personally, I don't want the Secret Service, Police, Body Guards, and the military to be the only ones in The United States who can have guns.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[eponymous]

...One man with a *** can control 100 without one.
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin...

What a load of crap. Your motives are so transparent.

You're not trying to preach against the evils of disarming a society. If that were your argument, there would at least be something to be said on behalf of that position.

No, you're trying to scare people into thinking they'll be victims so they'll agree with you.

There are serious issues to be addressed in this country, but you don't care about any of them. The only thing you care about is preaching hatred and intolerance, and the only weapon in your arsenal is fear.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[Sam Fisher]

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[eponymous]

^

This is the version as ****** by Congress before sending to the States for ratification. The version circulated to the States and ratified by them for final passage of the Bill of Rights - and the version certified by then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson - read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the different phrasing based on the placement of the comma. That in itself wouldn't mean much, but in numerous other versions prior to these, it was clear that the entire first half of the sentence (the "Clarifying" or "Defining" clause of the Article) was describing the need to support the State Militia's in order to provide for the common defense.

In modern terms, Militia's are what we now call the National Guard. And in the late 18th Century, they didn't have active members. Militia's formed on an ad hoc basis in response to domestic emergencies, and when someone was called to duty, they were expected to bring their own ***.

We don't do things this way anymore. I'm not saying guns should be ******, but we shouldn't give guns out like candy based solely on an historical anachronism, especially when the first thing that is said about Militia's in the text itself is that they should be "well regulated."