I wonder if the atrocities directed against unarmed Israeli civilians

has anyone EVER found ANY thing from ANY founder that suggested that an individual right was not intended?

 

Please go read Heller. For the love of God.
Quote the section in Heller dealing with explanation of prefatory and operative clauses where you get confused.

 

I've already read that section. It has been refuted by linguists who have access to much more information about how the words in the Second Amendment were commonly understood in the 18th Century.

 

wrong-what linguists have done is this-they claimed (in a historical era where the single most important happening was an armed revolution against Britain) that the term Keep and bear arms mainly referenced using firearms in a military environment (Duh). from that they pretend that "keep and bear" ONLY refers to people keeping and bearing arms for a collective military purpose which is utter and complete bullshit. Nothing ANY of the founders said-as constitutional scholar Don kates noted, suggests that an individual use was excluded. In fact, every relevant comment from the founders suggested individual rights were to be protected

 

Easy access to guns could end up causing more problems in Israel than it solves. Easy access to guns hasn't worked out very well in the US. I don't think Israel would want America's gun violence crisis.

 

IT COULD-speculation. I doubt they would have the same problems since their population is lacking large numbers of the people who cause most of the gun violence problems in the USA

 

You mean the linguists who completely ignored the state constitutions ratified by the very same legislatures that ratified the Second Amendment? Those researchers didn't work very hard if they couldn't find state constitutions.

 

You should write the Knesset and ask them.

 

I am familiar with their works and have read most of that drivel. Kates destroyed their argument in the seminal U of Michigan law review article I have oft-cited. That "keep and bear" mainly (at the time) was used in a military context is easily explained by the obvious historical reality that the founders had just been in a war where citizens using firearms overthrew a monarchy. If you look at copies of the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN from the WWII era, most of the articles are about military small arms. why? because it was what was the current topic of discussion. Of course those who had just been in a armed conflict were going to mainly talk about military uses of arms rather than pheasant hunting or target shooting

 

Except the decision itself has internal citations to actual grammar primers from the actual period in question.
Take issue with THOSE citations, do explain why they had no expertise describing the use of the language in their own time period.

 

When one had to be prioritized over the other, the right to self defense went out the window, which was evidenced by their gun grabbing campaign during the revolution.

 

Which predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, doesn't it?

 

We are talking about the Founders, and the same people who authored the Constitution. When things had to be prioritized, that's how they prioritized it.

 

At some point you're going to realize that your position of the actions taken to disarm enemies of the state during a state of war don't amount to a thimble full of warm spit (aka TWS if needed for reference in the future) in regards to gun control in the US. Not then, not now, not ever.

It's interesting though that in comparing priorities you are admitting that the individual right did exist as far back as 1776.

 

Yes.
It demonstrates the efficacy of armed civilians against the murderous mob.
As such, the anti-gun loons will increase their effort to disarms civilians ad a means to protect BLM, Antifa, etc -- their preferred murderous mob

 

Gotta tell you...
The chance I might reduce the chance of you, or anyone else, killing themselves does not compel me in any way to accept further restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms.

 

As the term has been defined by the court.
Just like "free speech".

 

I suspect many people who think that is a compelling argument are projecting and they are worried that they-themselves-might off themselves if they had a gun present so they want to pass laws so that won't happen

 

>423,000,000 guns n the US; >99.991% of them are not used to kill anyone.
For every gun used to commit murder, ~5 are used in self-defense.
For every gun used to commit suicide, ~4 are used in self-0defense.
Conclusion:
Your statement has no rational for factual basis.

 

At some point you're going to realize that I didn't say squat about gun control, I only shared a piece of American history. Were the Founders gun grabbers? Yes, but they had a reason to be. It was a sacrifice worth making, because otherwise we might still be speaking in British accents. Oh, blimey.

 

Is there a subforum where your history might be on topic? This is the Gun Control forum. We discuss gun control here.

 

NOOOOOOOO you're responsible for my own decisionarinos!!!!!!

/sarc

 

Something I once learned from a person who had been a drug addict and was subsequently clean for more than 30 years: If you don't buy any dope, you won't shoot any dope.
Seems like that advice applies to many things in life really.

 

Yes, I am in the right thread, which is actually about Israel. As I said earlier, they could apply a Swiss style approach where some military age folks would keep a military issued rifle + ammo (the Swiss are not given ammo) at home so they would respond to these kinds of attacks. All Israelis are military trained, so they know they way around guns.

You mean they want to pass laws to make it harder for them to commit suicide? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

 

actually it does.