What is the 2nd Amendment really for?

[Keep cool-idge]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

The first thing the minute men did once things with England got bad was get and protect there guns.

That’s why the British went to Lexington and concord it was to capture all there guns.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that you are attempting to put words in the mouths of men who lived hundreds of years ago, by assuming words and deeds spoken and acted in the eighteenth century translate directly to a particular position in a partisan debate occurring two centuries after their deaths. We don't know how the Founding Fathers would have felt about gun control, or any article of public policy from the 21st Century, because they are dead and ergo unable to tell us. I know it's tempting to assume otherwise, especially if you have only a casual understanding of history, but context does indeed matter, and support for the Minute Men of 1775 is exactly that — a response to a specific historical event that does not tell us anything about how George Washington's 285-year-old corpse would feel about universal background checks. The second problem, of course, is that the Founding Fathers were for a lot of things — like slavery and male-only voting — that we have since realized are bad ideas and removed from our Constitution.

Also, *you're. #ApostropheLivesMatter

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

The first thing the minute men did once things with England got bad was get and protect there guns.

That’s why the British went to Lexington and concord it was to capture all there guns.

More so the powder stores, but same basic idea.

[dead0man]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

And you're wording about accidental gun deaths, which make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths.  Seems like misplaced focus too if you want to reduce accidental deaths, no?

[Keep cool-idge]

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that you are attempting to put words in the mouths of men who lived hundreds of years ago, by assuming words and deeds spoken and acted in the eighteenth century translate directly to a particular position in a partisan debate occurring two centuries after their deaths. We don't know how the Founding Fathers would have felt about gun control, or any article of public policy from the 21st Century, because they are dead and ergo unable to tell us. I know it's tempting to assume otherwise, especially if you have only a casual understanding of history, but context does indeed matter, and support for the Minute Men of 1775 is exactly that — a response to a specific historical event that does not tell us anything about how George Washington's 285-year-old corpse would feel about universal background checks. The second problem, of course, is that the Founding Fathers were for a lot of things — like slavery and male-only voting — that we have since realized are bad ideas and removed from our Constitution.

Also, *you're. #ApostropheLivesMatter

I don’t know if you know this but even the founding fathers who owned slaves didn’t believe in slavery.

Thomas Jefferson had in the Declaration of Independence the freeing of all slaves but ben Franklin told him no because NC SC and GA would never sign on.

Okay if the founding fathers believed in gun control then why didn’t they ban some of the most powerful guns then?

Times were different then as well woman didn’t want the right to vote or own property,heck even in 1910s half of all women didn’t want the right to vote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

[Keep cool-idge]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

There is gun control already it doesn’t work very well.

Tell me what you want then for gun control?

An semi-auto gun ban?

More limits on ammunition?

More background checks?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

And you're wording about accidental gun deaths, which make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths.  Seems like misplaced focus too if you want to reduce accidental deaths, no?

No, I want to reduce all gun deaths, not just accidental gun deaths.  My concern is far more with the victims of suicide, domestic violence, and other crime.  That the measures most likely to do that will also cut down on accidental deaths is a bonus, but not an aim.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use. (That would encourage quick reporting of stolen guns and provide for sanctions against those who repeatedly have guns "stolen" from them.)
2) Gun user licensing, requiring that those seeking to use guns show they know how to safely handle the carrying, storage, and use of their gun.
3) Background checks on not merely all gun sales, but all gun owners.
4) A level of taxation on guns sufficient to cover their societal costs.
5) Elimination (or at least a considerable reduction) of concealed carry, since statistics show that concealed carry laws make society less safe, not more.

The above would be a bit of a burden, but none of those would run afoul of the 2nd amendment. 

[Keep cool-idge]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

And you're wording about accidental gun deaths, which make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths.  Seems like misplaced focus too if you want to reduce accidental deaths, no?

No, I want to reduce all gun deaths, not just accidental gun deaths.  My concern is far more with the victims of suicide, domestic violence, and other crime.  That the measures most likely to do that will also cut down on accidental deaths is a bonus, but not an aim.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use. (That would encourage quick reporting of stolen guns and provide for sanctions against those who repeatedly have guns "stolen" from them.)
2) Gun user licensing, requiring that those seeking to use guns show they know how to safely handle the carrying, storage, and use of their gun.
3) Background checks on not merely all gun sales, but all gun owners.
4) A level of taxation on guns sufficient to cover their societal costs.
5) Elimination (or at least a considerable reduction) of concealed carry, since statistics show that concealed carry laws make society less safe, not more.

The above would be a bit of a burden, but none of those would run afoul of the 2nd amendment. 

NO WAY TO A GUN REGISTERY.
Most gun owners know how to use a gun and even if some retard shoots them self in the foot then that’s there problem not the government.
There are background checks on all guns if BS that there is a gun show loophole.

No there should not be more taxes on guns besides what would that do to stop mass shootings or people shooting them selves.

How is concealed carry dangerous?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More people die per capita from gun deaths in states with concealed carry.  It is debatable the specific reasons for the correlation as well how important each factor is. However, they include the facts that having guns close at hand makes them more readily to be used in a moment of anger, that guns kept in cars by those with concealed carry permits are likelier to be stolen, and that people predisposed to be fearful are more likely to lash out mistakenly.  For me, the exact reason for the correlation is unimportant;  it is sufficient that the link between concealed carry and more deaths can be shown and that concealed carry is not needed for any sort of militia use. Open carry is more than sufficient for those purposes.

Increased taxes would pay for the costs that gun cultists impose on society and would serve as a discouragement for people to treat gun ownership as a status symbol instead of as the serious responsibility that it is. To borrow a phrase, I'd like to see gun ownership be "legal, safe, and rare".  Unless one gets into collecting them as a hobby, I can't see why anyone might need more than four firearms yet the average gun owner has around 10 these days, a figure which has more than doubled in the past two decades.

(The four are I can see a reasonable need for are a pistol for self-defense/target shooting, and a shotgun, light-caliber, and heavy-caliber rifle for different forms of hunting. Going beyond that is an excess which as far I can see only serves to make it easier for thieves to repurpose guns for criminal use. Still, if people want to pay for the excess, I see no reason to ban people being foolishly excessive.)

[Keep cool-idge]

More people die per capita from gun deaths in states with concealed carry.  It is debatable the specific reasons for the correlation as well how important each factor is. However, they include the facts that having guns close at hand makes them more readily to be used in a moment of anger, that guns kept in cars by those with concealed carry permits are likelier to be stolen, and that people predisposed to be fearful are more likely to lash out mistakenly.  For me, the exact reason for the correlation is unimportant;  it is sufficient that the link between concealed carry and more deaths can be shown and that concealed carry is not needed for any sort of militia use. Open carry is more than sufficient for those purposes.

Increased taxes would pay for the costs that gun cultists impose on society and would serve as a discouragement for people to treat gun ownership as a status symbol instead of as the serious responsibility that it is. To borrow a phrase, I'd like to see gun ownership be "legal, safe, and rare".  Unless one gets into collecting them as a hobby, I can't see why anyone might need more than four firearms yet the average gun owner has around 10 these days, a figure which has more than doubled in the past two decades.

(The four are I can see a reasonable need for are a pistol for self-defense/target shooting, and a shotgun, light-caliber, and heavy-caliber rifle for different forms of hunting. Going beyond that is an excess which as far I can see only serves to make it easier for thieves to repurpose guns for criminal use. Still, if people want to pay for the excess, I see no reason to ban people being foolishly excessive.)

So you’re saying that people should be allowed to only have 4 guns?

[Blair]

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that you are attempting to put words in the mouths of men who lived hundreds of years ago, by assuming words and deeds spoken and acted in the eighteenth century translate directly to a particular position in a partisan debate occurring two centuries after their deaths. We don't know how the Founding Fathers would have felt about gun control, or any article of public policy from the 21st Century, because they are dead and ergo unable to tell us. I know it's tempting to assume otherwise, especially if you have only a casual understanding of history, but context does indeed matter, and support for the Minute Men of 1775 is exactly that — a response to a specific historical event that does not tell us anything about how George Washington's 285-year-old corpse would feel about universal background checks. The second problem, of course, is that the Founding Fathers were for a lot of things — like slavery and male-only voting — that we have since realized are bad ideas and removed from our Constitution.

Also, *you're. #ApostropheLivesMatter

I don’t know if you know this but even the founding fathers who owned slaves didn’t believe in slavery.

Thomas Jefferson had in the Declaration of Independence the freeing of all slaves but ben Franklin told him no because NC SC and GA would never sign on.

Okay if the founding fathers believed in gun control then why didn’t they ban some of the most powerful guns then?

Times were different then as well woman didn’t want the right to vote or own property,heck even in 1910s half of all women didn’t want the right to vote.

Well they did.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More people die per capita from gun deaths in states with concealed carry.  It is debatable the specific reasons for the correlation as well how important each factor is. However, they include the facts that having guns close at hand makes them more readily to be used in a moment of anger, that guns kept in cars by those with concealed carry permits are likelier to be stolen, and that people predisposed to be fearful are more likely to lash out mistakenly.  For me, the exact reason for the correlation is unimportant;  it is sufficient that the link between concealed carry and more deaths can be shown and that concealed carry is not needed for any sort of militia use. Open carry is more than sufficient for those purposes.

Increased taxes would pay for the costs that gun cultists impose on society and would serve as a discouragement for people to treat gun ownership as a status symbol instead of as the serious responsibility that it is. To borrow a phrase, I'd like to see gun ownership be "legal, safe, and rare".  Unless one gets into collecting them as a hobby, I can't see why anyone might need more than four firearms yet the average gun owner has around 10 these days, a figure which has more than doubled in the past two decades.

(The four are I can see a reasonable need for are a pistol for self-defense/target shooting, and a shotgun, light-caliber, and heavy-caliber rifle for different forms of hunting. Going beyond that is an excess which as far I can see only serves to make it easier for thieves to repurpose guns for criminal use. Still, if people want to pay for the excess, I see no reason to ban people being foolishly excessive.)

So you’re saying that people should be allowed to only have 4 guns?

Clearly you can't read if you think that's what I was saying.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don’t know if you know this but even the founding fathers who owned slaves didn’t believe in slavery.

Thomas Jefferson had in the Declaration of Independence the freeing of all slaves but ben Franklin told him no because NC SC and GA would never sign on.

This is really tangental to the subject at hand; but yes, I am aware of this. Technically, the account you give is not, strictly speaking, accurate (Jefferson was trying to abolish the slave trade, not slavery itself); but this is still an important point that ought to be remembered in any discussion of slavery's role in American history... which this is not.

Okay if the founding fathers believed in gun control then why didn’t they ban some of the most powerful guns then?

What? That is not my point at all. Please read my post again.

Times were different then

Exactly! And it is for precisely this reason that we should not project 21st Century political views onto deceased historical figures based on something they said or did 200 years ago: "times were different then," and to pretend as if we know where the Founders would stand on gun control, or immigration, or gay marriage had they lived to see the present day is intellectually unsound.

[MarkD]

Exactly! And it is for precisely this reason that we should not project 21st Century political views onto deceased historical figures based on something they said or did 200 years ago: "times were different then," and to pretend as if we know where the Founders would stand on gun control, or immigration, or gay marriage had they lived to see the present day is intellectually unsound.

An interpreter of a provision in the U.S. Constitution always needs a major premise to work with in order to arrive at a conclusion. The major premise should be what the provision was intended to mean. What would "the right to keep and bear arms" have meant to our Founding Fathers. If a modern interpreter does not know what major premise to infer from the 2nd Amendment, then the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. The modern interpreter does not have to know specific things about muskets, etc. Does the first phrase in the 2nd Amendment alter the major premise in any way? The answers to these questions are not easy and I'm not going to pretend to have any answers, but I feel I've to say that the Founding Fathers' intentions do matter when we are interpreting a provision in the U.S. Constitution -- the main body of the document -- and any of the first ten amendments. Their intentions matter as we try to identify what are called major premises.

[dead0man]

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use.

Hawaii, Which Registers Guns and Medical Marijuana Users, Starts Disarming Patients

[Mr. Reactionary]

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use.

Hawaii, Which Registers Guns and Medical Marijuana Users, Starts Disarming Patients

Goddamn fuking nazis stripping rights from people seeking medical treatment. But yeah, putting people on lists is great.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Most gun owners know how to use a gun

Excellent! Then it shouldn't be a problem for them to demonstrate that proficiency to receive a license.

even if some retard shoots them self in the foot then that’s there problem not the government.

You know, if you're going to use a word like "retard" to describe the victims of accidental firearm fatalities, you should really check to see if you've used the correct spelling of "there/their/they're" first. In any case, people being killed by in accidents caused by incompetent gun owners clearly is a community concern.


I'm actually curious as to why someone would oppose introducing a proficiency test for new gun owners. I can understand why someone of a conservative persuasion might balk at the idea of a national gun registry, an added tax on bullets, or things of that nature; but a proficiency test strikes me as something that ought to be uncontroversial, given that we're talking about something that is literally designed to kill people (unlike, say, cars). Is the reasoning that the 2nd Amendment is a right and a proficiency test is therefore akin to literacy tests for voting, or is there a practical concern?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use.

Hawaii, Which Registers Guns and Medical Marijuana Users, Starts Disarming Patients

A little disingenuous in that you fail to note that Hawaii is enforcing Federal law here, which says that marijuana use for any reason makes it illegal to own a gun. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment worshipping Republican Congress can do something about that.

[dead0man]

sure, but that doesn't change the larger fact that they are confiscating guns because they have a gun registration.  I don't doubt that YOU would never support gun confiscation, but many many many other gun control nuts would.  Even for sh**tty reasons like they have a medical weed card.  They don't care about the constitution, fair play, or anything, as long as they get a gun off the street.

To an honest gun control advocate that isn't looking to take grand pa's hunting rifle or shotgun or aunt Carol's handgun she uses when she makes cash drop offs from her pie shop, gun registration doesn't seem like that big of a deal.  They would never look to use the list to confiscate guns.....but other, less honest gun control nuts would gladly use it, as can be seen here, to do just that.

I'm not, in principle, against gun registration, but I know, in practice, it would eventually be used to take an honest man's gun.  That is unacceptable to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll happily support confiscation of guns from people who aren't legally able to buy them in the first place. That's just common sense in my opinion. What I am opposed to is making ridiculous things--such as the use of medical marijuana--a bar to gun ownership in the first place.

Besides, if it ever got to the point where it would be politically possible to take "an honest man's gun", the second amendment wouldn't be a bar, but at most a speed bump. That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum. Hence, basing policy on impossible paranoia is ridiculous.

[dead0man]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

[Keep cool-idge]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

I honestly don’t get why you want facts about the founding fathers and the second amendment.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

I honestly don’t get why you want facts about the founding fathers and the second amendment.

Perhaps because facts matter far more than mere opinion?