Should the possession of automatic weapons be legal?

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.

[AkSaber]

Again, I don't think the framers imagined people owning assault rifles and unloading clips in a shopping center or school killing dozens in the blink of an eye. 

I disagree. I believe that if the Founders saw the rifles we have today, their reaction would be something like, "Damn, why couldn't we have some of those." Cause the Second Amendment was put in, not for defense from criminals or hunting, but so the people could prevent the government from taking their rights away. And to that end that's why I think the Founders wouldn't have a problem with the weapons we own today.

[MODU]

I guess your experience at the military filled you with bitterness against freedom.

Uhhh . . . ok?

[DWPerry]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've never quite understood the invocation of that amendment as an attempt to show that every single type of gun in existence should be legal.  It seems to me that as long as the government is not restricting the people from keeping and bearing some sort of arms, then the text of the amendment has been fulfilled.

So you would have no problem with the government passing a law stating that only "pellet & BB guns and pistols can be legally owned"?

[Joe Republic]

The framers enshrined a right to own military weapons for a military purpose. They knew very well what they were doing. They had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."

The reasons for the Second Amendment's presence in the Constitution are well known even to its opponents.  However, while the framers' original intent is a valid one, sadly it's not a particularly practical one as far as I'm personally concerned, given that I am far more worried about the weird loner with a personal stockpile and a grudge than I am of the government and its potential to strip all my rights away.  After all, while the framers might have been worrying about lofty issues like ensuring that their baby government wouldn't descend into tyranny, the following fact remains:

I don't think the framers imagined people owning assault rifles and unloading clips in a shopping center or school killing dozens in the blink of an eye. 

[Bono]

The framers enshrined a right to own military weapons for a military purpose. They knew very well what they were doing. They had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."

The reasons for the Second Amendment's presence in the Constitution are well known even to its opponents.  However, while the framers' original intent is a valid one, sadly it's not a particularly practical one as far as I'm personally concerned, given that I am far more worried about the weird loner with a personal stockpile and a grudge than I am of the government and its potential to strip all my rights away.  After all, while the framers might have been worrying about lofty issues like ensuring that their baby government wouldn't descend into tyranny, the following fact remains:

I don't think the framers imagined people owning assault rifles and unloading clips in a shopping center or school killing dozens in the blink of an eye. 

And I said that the framers had every opportunity to include in the 2nd amendment: "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time".
In the framer's time, you could also get a bomb and throw it into a street market or something. Besides, the prefatory clause clearly established that guns that serve a purpose in militia service cannot be banned.

[Joe Republic]

And I said that the framers had every opportunity to include in the 2nd amendment: "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time".
In the framer's time, you could also get a bomb and throw it into a street market or something. Besides, the prefatory clause clearly established that guns that serve a purpose in militia service cannot be banned.

I know this, but as I implied, the framers chose to exclude that proviso because they were still too concerned with the idea that the people might need as much force as necessary to defend themselves from the government.  Which was a perfectly valid concern both then and now.  But I can only speculate if they had seriously considered that people would abuse their own rights by using their weapons to kill several of their fellow citizens all at once for little or no reason.  Perhaps those eighteenth century white men had never even entertained the notion that people were capable of such evil, let alone in a culture and society like today that they would never know of.

I'm not proposing any kind of 'disclaimer' to the Second Amendment, because that's a can of worms I won't open.  But my point is that we should not focus too strongly on framers' intent, since for obvious reasons their intent took no consideration of lunatic nutjobs with grudges against strangers.

[Bono]

And I said that the framers had every opportunity to include in the 2nd amendment: "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time".
In the framer's time, you could also get a bomb and throw it into a street market or something. Besides, the prefatory clause clearly established that guns that serve a purpose in militia service cannot be banned.

I know this, but as I implied, the framers chose to exclude that proviso because they were still too concerned with the idea that the people might need as much force as necessary to defend themselves from the government.  Which was a perfectly valid concern both then and now.  But I can only speculate if they had seriously considered that people would abuse their own rights by using their weapons to kill several of their fellow citizens all at once for little or no reason.  Perhaps those eighteenth century white men had never even entertained the notion that people were capable of such evil, let alone in a culture and society like today that they would never know of.

I'm not proposing any kind of 'disclaimer' to the Second Amendment, because that's a can of worms I won't open.  But my point is that we should not focus too strongly on framers' intent, since for obvious reasons their intent took no consideration of lunatic nutjobs with grudges against strangers.

There were plenty of rebellions the framers fought, like those whiskey guys in Pennsylvania.
I'm also getting seriously pissed of with the trend lately to, before devaluing someone's opinion, mentioning they're white, as if that completely made anything they would have to say irrelevant. Double points if they are white men.
Besides, do you have any evidence that the quantity of evil present in society has increased from the eighteenth century to the twenty-first?

[Speed of Sound]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Y'Don't watch much of what The Supreme Court does, do ya?

[Joe Republic]

There were plenty of rebellions the framers fought, like those whiskey guys in Pennsylvania.

A rebellion is not the same as a loner with a personal arsenal and nothing better to use it on than a bunch of people he doesn't even know and yet hates anyway.

I'm also getting seriously pissed of with the trend lately to, before devaluing someone's opinion, mentioning they're white, as if that completely made anything they would have to say irrelevant. Double points if they are white men.

Well how about this:  Give a detailed description of James Madison's views on how several black musicians use their art to promote the idea of shooting fellow citizens because they don't happen to like them.  Or how violent video games might do the same.

My own position on rappers and video games and their effect on gun violence are entirely different and separate, but my point is of course to highlight the fact that James Madison would be completely out of his depth in such a debate.  Thus, his (and the other framers of course) intent on the Second Amendment has only a limited significance in modern day debates on the subject.

Besides, do you have any evidence that the quantity of evil present in society has increased from the eighteenth century to the twenty-first?

I never said anything about the 'quantity' of evil; if anything it's the dynamics of it that have changed.  Or the 'quality' of it, I suppose.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Heck no - you don't need an auto to defend yourself.

[Nym90]

Fully automatic? Definitely not. Semi auto, yes.