22+ killed in mass shooting in Maine

[GeddyLee09]

I don’t know, but I bet most mass shootings use a pistol, not an ar15 rifle. Most mass shootings aren’t the crazy person scenario. It’s gangs in urban areas or domestic violence .

Yes, rifles have bigger muzzle velocities and a semi automatic can fire fast. Many handguns also hold a lot of bullets and can be fired fast. There are also ways to load and reload fast. You could also carry two pistols and still be more concealed than walking around with a rifle. As far as rifles go, the ar15 isn’t special. It looks like an m16. It’s not fully automatic like a m16. Some people think that looks cool.

What are you proposing to ban? Semi automatic rifles? That’s a pretty big scope of weapons and a pistol or a couple of pistols still accomplishes the same goal. In my opinion, the thought process here just leads to banning all guns. In my opinion, that is the goal of the political groups advocating for “assault rifle” bans. They’re trying to get to a point where only the state can own guns.

I digress. Pistols are often a more powerful tool and are more often used in masa shootings than an ar15. For example, the event I’m most familiar with because I was finishing my graduate degree there and I taught classes in the building he did the most damage in is the Virginia Tech shooting. He killed 32 people and injured 17 with two handguns, one of which had a 10-round magazine and the other a 15-round magazine. He simply brought 19 extra magazines. That’s plenty powerful and in an indoor environment, arguably more potent. You think he would have been more successful with an AR15?

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

There are some stats on weapons used in mass shootings. Take what you want from that.

Here's my take on the whole thing. I'm a proponent of guns and their ownership. However, I'm not of the belief that everyone should be able to own any type of gun or that all guns and ammo should be for sale. I own guns and keep them at home. I have hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. I used to own an AR-15 but I disposed of it (did not sell) as my son owned it and I didn't like the idea, so I bought it from him and disposed of it.

I think people should be able to own firearms but there should be very stringent rules and procedures in place. I'm not a fan of open carry or constitutional carry laws without some sort of constraints. As for the AR-15 and other military type weapons I don't think there's a reason everyday Joes should own them. I'm a fan of the police and they should have the advantage. If were to the point where we need Bubba and Billy to have an AR we are f#$%ed. A bunch of armed nuts with video game experience fighting off a trained force would not last long.

Like I said I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, I keep a handgun in my vehicle as well. All adequately trained and stable citizens should be able to do the same but there should be limits. I have no need to own a AR-15 or a 50 cal rifle.

 

[Banditking]

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

There are some stats on weapons used in mass shootings. Take what you want from that.

Here's my take on the whole thing. I'm a proponent of guns and their ownership. However, I'm not of the belief that everyone should be able to own any type of gun or that all guns and ammo should be for sale. I own guns and keep them at home. I have hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. I used to own an AR-15 but I disposed of it (did not sell) as my son owned it and I didn't like the idea, so I bought it from him and disposed of it.

I think people should be able to own firearms but there should be very stringent rules and procedures in place. I'm not a fan of open carry or constitutional carry laws without some sort of constraints. As for the AR-15 and other military type weapons I don't think there's a reason everyday Joes should own them. I'm a fan of the police and they should have the advantage. If were to the point where we need Bubba and Billy to have an AR we are f#$%ed. A bunch of armed nuts with video game experience fighting off a trained force would not last long.

Like I said I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, I keep a handgun in my vehicle as well. All adequately trained and stable citizens should be able to do the same but there should be limits. I have no need to own a AR-15 or a 50 cal rifle.

Ok. Can I have an m1 carbine? Why is an ar15 “military style” but not a 1911 pistol? The latter was (don’t know about now) standard military issue for a long time. The ar15 never has been.

Guns are powerful tools. Do I think it’s necessary for someone to walk around with a pistol tucked into their underwear like I saw at a gas station recently? No. That person was using it as a fashion accessory to look intimidating. Would it have been more alarming for him to be carrying an Ar15? Sure. Because, why the hell would someone walk around with a rifle slung over their chest at a gas station? But, I see no point to singling out an ar15.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Ok. Can I have an m1 carbine? Why is an ar15 “military style” but not a 1911 pistol? The latter was (don’t know about now) standard military issue for a long time. The ar15 never has been.

Guns are powerful tools. Do I think it’s necessary for someone to walk around with a pistol tucked into their underwear like I saw at a gas station recently? No. That person was using it as a fashion accessory to look intimidating. But, I see no point to singling out an ar15.

The AR-15 is just a civilian version of the M-16A1 of which there are many variants and has been used by all branches of the military for years among others. There's no reason for a civilian to own an M1, M14, AR10 type rifle. And your correct many dumbasses just walk around with a gun on their hip to look cool or tough. Most of those types would pee themselves if they ever had to use it. Think Barney Fife.

 

[Banditking]

The AR-15 is just a civilian version of the M-16A1 of which there are many variants and has been used by all branches of the military for years among others. There's no reason for a civilian to own an M1, M14, AR10 type rifle. And your correct many dumbasses just walk around with a gun on their hip to look cool or tough. Most of those types would pee themselves if they ever had to use it. Think Barney Fife.

The ar 15 looks like an m16, its primary appeal. It doesn’t use the same bullets nor is it fully automatic.

There’s no reason for a civilian to eat more calories than they need in a given day or to feed their children fast food. These actions kill more than guns. Should we regulate that?

 

[GeddyLee09]

The ar 15 looks like an m16, its primary appeal. It doesn’t use the same bullets nor is it fully automatic.

There’s no reason for a civilian to eat more calories than they need in a given day or to feed their children fast food. These actions kill more than guns. Should we regulate that?

Not true. The early versions used different ammo but now the AR and M-16 both use 5.56 or .223. The M16 can be fully auto which is the main difference.

What’s the Difference Between an AR15, M4, and M16?

Over the past 20 years, the AR-15 has become the most popular rifle in America. It displays an excellent combination of reliability, accuracy, ergonomics, and modularity that have stood the test of time. But what exactly is an AR-15? Is it a brand? A style of rifle? Due to the heavy media...

www.libertysafe.com

https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/agile-and-m16#:~:text=The%20M16%20Assault%20Rifle%20is,load%20warfighters%20needed%20to%20carry.

 

[GeddyLee09]

The ar 15 looks like an m16, its primary appeal. It doesn’t use the same bullets nor is it fully automatic.

There’s no reason for a civilian to eat more calories than they need in a given day or to feed their children fast food. These actions kill more than guns. Should we regulate that?

Also, you or someone eating too much and being fat only hurts the individual, can't hurt anyone else unless they fall or sit on them. Thats my argument with motorcycle helmets a seatbelt too but we regulate those. Im not a fan of the nanny state but some things people dont need to own. Military rifles, ammonium nitrate in large qualities, anthrax spores, things like that.

 

[Banditking]

Also, you or someone eating too much and being fat only hurts the individual, can't hurt anyone else unless they fall or sit on them. Thats my argument with motorcycle helmets a seatbelt too but we regulate those. Im not a fan of the nanny state but some things people dont need to own. Military rifles, ammonium nitrate in large qualities, anthrax spores, things like that.

That’s not true though. Those parents teach children to eat too much which hurts them and those children teach their children to eat too much, hurting generations. Further, other people see obese people. The increased obesity rates change what people perceive as normal which changes their view of acceptable. The obesity epidemic is a massive drain on economy and diminished quality of life.

Not wearing seatbelts increases the possibility that you psychologically injure someone else in an accident. Eg, the person you get in a car accident with. Increase psychiatric distress may affect everyone who knows that person. It could lead to increased suicide as well as unfavorable health outcomes. Chronic stress increases rates of heart failure and diabetes for example.

 

[QuaZ2002]

I’m not advocating we ban ARs, merely suggesting some safeguards/hurdles put in place in regards to buying them. Why can’t firearms be put into different classifications with additional screening and safeguards put into place the higher up you go? If you want to buy a small handgun or low caliber hunting rifle that’s one class that shouldn’t be too difficult. But if you want to acquire something like an AR why shouldn’t you have to take a weekend course on gun safety? Do a quick interview with an ATF agent? Have a legit background check? Register the gun and obtain a license for it? Some 18y/o kid shouldn’t be able to walk into the local gun store, point at the AR, fill out some basic paperwork and pick it up a few days later, that’s absurd. How is anyone ok with the new concealed weapons laws in the state of FL? It’s like the Wild West, anyone can just walk around with a gun and what you get are a lot of minor altercations that turn deadly bc one guy has an itchy trigger finger and can just claim self defense and get away with it.

And while I realize this isn’t PC, the gang related “mass shootings” aren’t what concern me. If you’re involved in gangs and crime you reap what you sow. What concerns me are people getting shot up at church, at the grocery store, at the bowling alley, and in schools.

 

[Banditking]

I’m not advocating we ban ARs, merely suggesting some safeguards/hurdles put in place in regards to buying them. Why can’t firearms be put into different classifications with additional screening and safeguards put into place the higher up you go? If you want to buy a small handgun or low caliber hunting rifle that’s one class that shouldn’t be too difficult. But if you want to acquire something like an AR why shouldn’t you have to take a weekend course on gun safety? Do a quick interview with an ATF agent? Have a legit background check? Register the gun and obtain a license for it? Some 18y/o kid shouldn’t be able to walk into the local gun store, point at the AR, fill out some basic paperwork and pick it up a few days later, that’s absurd. How is anyone ok with the new concealed weapons laws in the state of FL? It’s like the Wild West, anyone can just walk around with a gun and what you get are a lot of minor altercations that turn deadly bc one guy has an itchy trigger finger and can just claim self defense and get away with it.

And while I realize this isn’t PC, the gang related “mass shootings” aren’t what concern me. If you’re involved in gangs and crime you reap what you sow. What concerns me are people getting shot up at church, at the grocery store, at the bowling alley, and in schools.

Yeah, the latter situation, grocery store, schools is pretty rare. I’m all for trying to decrease the odds of that. I just think mental health is the way to go on that not going after specific classes of guns. That’s politically popular with certain groups but I’m skeptical that it would be effective.

 

[QuaZ2002]

Yeah, the latter situation, grocery store, schools is pretty rare. I’m all for trying to decrease the odds of that. I just think mental health is the way to go on that not going after specific classes of guns. That’s politically popular with certain groups but I’m skeptical that it would be effective.

So is the US the only country with mental health issues? Bc we’re basically the only country who has these types of shootings 3-4 times a year. What’s the difference? Would it hurt to try something different? Or just more praying?

 

[NoleSince1961]

Why does any of this have to be some binary choice of better mental health resources/attention being “the way to go” VS meaningfully pursuing reasonable gun controls/limitations… what’s wrong with both, along with whatever else might look like potentially helpful levers during the hopefully bipartisan effort to bring down the US’ insanely high rates of gun violence and death. (And before anybody goes there, none of that ignores other forms of violence, since addressing gun violence doesn’t preclude exploring how best to reduce all forms of violence.)

None of the country-to-country comparative data supports the notion that the US has some kind of uniquely severe mental health crisis that explains away our statistically high rates of gun violence, mass shootings, etc
The much stronger statistical correlation is with our laxer gun laws, easy gun access and high gun ownership as compared to other developed nations. Correlation isn’t necessarily causation, and we have that 2nd Amendment to negotiate, but there’s little evidence to support the dismissive narrative that it’s all about mental health, or that there’s any one driver that we can focus on at the exclusion of others.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Why does any of this have to be some binary choice of better mental health resources/attention being “the way to go” VS meaningfully pursuing reasonable gun controls/limitations… what’s wrong with both, along with whatever else might look like potentially helpful levers during the hopefully bipartisan effort to bring down the US’ insanely high rates of gun violence and death. (And before anybody goes there, none of that ignores other forms of violence, since addressing gun violence doesn’t preclude exploring how best to reduce all forms of violence.)

None of the country-to-country comparative data supports the notion that the US has some kind of uniquely severe mental health crisis that explains away our statistically high rates of gun violence, mass shootings, etc
The much stronger statistical correlation is with our laxer gun laws, easy gun access and high gun ownership as compared to other developed nations. Correlation isn’t necessarily causation, and we have that 2nd Amendment to negotiate, but there’s little evidence to support the dismissive narrative that it’s all about mental health, or that there’s any one driver that we can focus on at the exclusion of others.

Absolutely true. We should look at both sides to lower the numbers. Start with enforcing the laws we have, utilize the systems and controls we have in place then look to improve those. If it means a hillbilly or thug has a harder time getting a gun so be it.

 

[Banditking]

So is the US the only country with mental health issues? Bc we’re basically the only country who has these types of shootings 3-4 times a year. What’s the difference? Would it hurt to try something different? Or just more praying?

Not sure if accurate, but …


“Although you may see sensational headlinesto the contrary, when compared with other developed countries and accounting for population differences through the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, the U.S. makes up less than 1.43 percent of the mass public shooters population. It also accounts for 2.11 percent of attackers’ murders and 2.88 percent of the attacks. All these are much less than the U.S.’s 4.6 percent share of the world population. Attacks are not only less frequent in America than in other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. The 437-page data set and detailed list of countries can be found on the CPRC website.”

 

[GeddyLee09]

Not sure if accurate, but …


“Although you may see sensational headlinesto the contrary, when compared with other developed countries and accounting for population differences through the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, the U.S. makes up less than 1.43 percent of the mass public shooters population. It also accounts for 2.11 percent of attackers’ murders and 2.88 percent of the attacks. All these are much less than the U.S.’s 4.6 percent share of the world population. Attacks are not only less frequent in America than in other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. The 437-page data set and detailed list of countries can be found on the CPRC website.”

 

[NoleSince1961]

Not sure if accurate, but …


“Although you may see sensational headlinesto the contrary, when compared with other developed countries and accounting for population differences through the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, the U.S. makes up less than 1.43 percent of the mass public shooters population. It also accounts for 2.11 percent of attackers’ murders and 2.88 percent of the attacks. All these are much less than the U.S.’s 4.6 percent share of the world population. Attacks are not only less frequent in America than in other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. The 437-page data set and detailed list of countries can be found on the CPRC website.”

Might be helpful to take a deeper look at the dataset used. That’s specifically why I said “The much stronger statistical correlation is with our laxer gun laws, easy gun access and high gun ownership as compared to other developed nations.”
The convenient-to-the-source’s-narrative study you shared includes super unstable and undeveloped/developing nations like Afghanistan, Uganda, Rwanda, etc, against whom it’s pretty meaningless for anyone in the US to be comparing gun violence stats.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Might be helpful to take a deeper look at the dataset used. That’s specifically why I said “The much stronger statistical correlation is with our laxer gun laws, easy gun access and high gun ownership as compared to other developed nations.”
The convenient-to-the-source’s-narrative study you shared includes super unstable and undeveloped/developing nations like Afghanistan, Uganda, Rwanda, etc, against whom it’s pretty meaningless for anyone in the US to be comparing gun violence stats.

To be fair it's also not meaningful to compare gun violence in the US to countries that has very low or no gun ownership. If there is a country in the world with comparable ratios of guns to people, we should compare their violent crime numbers to the US.

Full disclosure: I do agree we have a problem in this country. Is it worse than the rest of the world? Yes, because we have more guns but how does that compare with other gun owning countries if there are any.

 

[NoleSince1961]

To be fair it's also not meaningful to compare gun violence in the US to countries that has very low or no gun ownership. If there is a country in the world with comparable ratios of guns to people, we should compare their violent crime numbers to the US.

Full disclosure: I do agree we have a problem in this country. Is it worse than the rest of the world? Yes, because we have more guns but how does that compare with other gun owning countries if there are any.

I understand what you’re saying, but from a statistical analysis standpoint, it’s a lot easier (or at least less prone to analysis error) to control for differences in gun ownership and/or to hypothesize about the potential impacts of higher or lower gun ownership between similarly developed/relatively stable nations than it is to control for or hypothesize in a meaningful way about huge differences in basic infrastructure, lawlessness or respect for the law (and who/what is the law), extreme poverty, tribal/civil war, etc

 

[GeddyLee09]

I understand what you’re saying, but from a statistical analysis standpoint, it’s a lot easier (or at least less prone to analysis error) to control for differences in gun ownership and/or to hypothesize about the potential impacts of higher or lower gun ownership between similarly developed/relatively stable nations than it is to control for or hypothesize in a meaningful way about huge differences in basic infrastructure, lawlessness or respect for the law (and who/what is the law), extreme poverty, tribal/civil war, etc

I get it. It's a tough to make a apples-to-apples comparison here with so many variables. Even if we look at numbers in the US, by numbers of guns its over 100 guns per 100 people which sounds like everyone has one but by people that actually own guns its around 32% of the population. It tells us that a third of the population owns most of the guns.

 

[NoleSince1961]

I get it. It's a tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison here with so many variables. Even if we look at numbers in the US, by numbers of guns its over 100 guns per 100 people which sounds like everyone has one but by people that actually own guns its around 32% of the population. It tells us that a third of the population owns most of the guns.

Also tough to make state by state comparisons, at least without acknowledging the caveats, based on which states have more or less lax gun restrictions, gun ownership, etc, since it’s so easy, geographically, economically and with our high mobility/car ownership and no border restraints betw states for anybody who wishes to move from state to state, not to mention controlling for potential changes in all those variables by year and by state.

The key thing to me is the need to acknowledge that just throwing up our hands in defeat or merely clasping our hands in thoughts & prayers, and basically doing nothing is completely untenable.
All (or at least a bipartisan majority of) legislators and thought-leaders of every political persuasion are going to have to be genuinely willing to listen and to focus on the desired outcomes vs playing to the base, kowtowing to donors or any other special interests, avenging grievances and scoring political points, etc, or else we’re going to be stuck in the horror movie version of Groundhog’s Day forever.

 

[noletaire]

I have no problem with making certain weapons have a stricter criteria to purchase. For example: an AR:
1) 25 years or older to purchase
2) 3 day wait period mandatory
3). Full background criminal history check
4) Maybe..... People with history of violent crimes are not eligible to purchase??
Should there be a component of including mental illness? If so, what types of mental illness?

 

[noletaire]

Also tough to make state by state comparisons, at least without acknowledging the caveats, based on which states have more or less lax gun restrictions, gun ownership, etc, since it’s so easy, geographically, economically and with our high mobility/car ownership and no border restraints betw states for anybody who wishes to move from state to state, not to mention controlling for potential changes in all those variables by year and by state.

The key thing to me is the need to acknowledge that just throwing up our hands in defeat or merely clasping our hands in thoughts & prayers, and basically doing nothing is completely untenable.
All (or at least a bipartisan majority of) legislators and thought-leaders of every political persuasion are going to have to be genuinely willing to listen and to focus on the desired outcomes vs playing to the base, kowtowing to donors or any other special interests, avenging grievances and scoring political points, etc, or else we’re going to be stuck in the horror movie version of Groundhog’s Day forever.

For once, I can't say I disagree with you.
But bipartisan support will never happen because like everything else in this nation, we've made it a complete political issue so now one side will support and the other will be against.
And more people will die. This is why I've said for years the two party system is broken and we need a real third party. Not getting political here, just stating why nothing will change. And this is from someone who has an AK variant made in Yugoslavia and was once an NRA member.

 

[GeddyLee09]

I have no problem with making certain weapons have a stricter criteria to purchase. For example: an AR:
1) 25 years or older to purchase
2) 3 day wait period mandatory
3). Full background criminal history check
4) Maybe..... People with history of violent crimes are not eligible to purchase??
Should there be a component of including mental illness? If so, what types of mental illness?

Why not have those rules for all weapons purchases? Unless that's what you meant.
25 or older unless your active military or police
7- or 14-day waiting period.
Full background check at the purchaser's expense
Violent crimes and convicted felon's ineligible. Other crimes could have longer waiting periods.
Mental illness component
Gun Safety course requirement

I'm not a fan of confiscating guns or being a nanny state but make dangerous things difficult especially things that are dangerous for others. Those that really want to legally own a firearm will have no problem getting qualified to do it.

 

[noletaire]

Why not have those rules for all weapons purchases? Unless that's what you meant.
25 or older unless your active military or police
7- or 14-day waiting period.
Full background check at the purchaser's expense
Violent crimes and convicted felon's ineligible. Other crimes could have longer waiting periods.
Mental illness component
Gun Safety course requirement

I'm not a fan of confiscating guns or being a nanny state but make dangerous things difficult especially things that are dangerous for others. Those that really want to legally own a firearm will have no problem getting qualified to do it.

Agree 100%
I completely agree would those restrictions on every weapon that can fire multiple rounds. And this is from someone who owns numerous weapons.

 

[F4Gary]

Why not have those rules for all weapons purchases?

Why can't a 16 year old own a .22? What about air rifles? BB guns.
It's a great way for the younger folks to learn how to properly use a gun and learn gun safety.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Why can't a 16 year old own a .22? What about air rifles? BB guns.
It's a great way for the younger folks to learn how to properly use a gun and learn gun safety.

I don't think air rifles or bb guns are an issue. I really don't think a .22 is an issue either but you have to start somewhere. I had a .22 as a kid and a .410 but it was given to me. Also it was a different time and we lived in the country, guns were as normal as an oak tree. I don't know but could a 16- or 18-year-old purchase a handgun right now?

Or start the restrictions with certain weapons and enforce the laws we have now.

 

[NoleSince1961]

For once, I can't say I disagree with you.
But bipartisan support will never happen because like everything else in this nation, we've made it a complete political issue so now one side will support and the other will be against.
And more people will die. This is why I've said for years the two party system is broken and we need a real third party. Not getting political here, just stating why nothing will change. And this is from someone who has an AK variant made in Yugoslavia and was once an NRA member.

We need to completely remove all special interest and corporate $ from our political system but I realize that’s pie in the sky as well.

Besides the issue of whom our leaders are beholden to, it would be awesome if all elected officials could focus 90% of their time on meaningful improvements and protecting all citizens’ (and good actor visitors’) access to and enjoyment of what America has to offer and to make our nation truly the best she can be for the most folks, and the remaining 10% (or less) fundraising and campaigning, vs the other way around.

Edit: the only non-govt organizational $$$ I’d allow in my fantasy world would be contributions to a Democracy Fund that is equally split among candidates, to supplement whatever base amount from our taxes goes to $X per race to fund enough marketing to inform voters of each candidate’s qualifications, vision, etc

 

[Banditking]

I don't think air rifles or bb guns are an issue. I really don't think a .22 is an issue either but you have to start somewhere. I had a .22 as a kid and a .410 but it was given to me. Also it was a different time and we lived in the country, guns were as normal as an oak tree. I don't know but could a 16- or 18-year-old purchase a handgun right now?

Or start the restrictions with certain weapons and enforce the laws we have now.

Yep. Did you have a lot of mass shootings?

My dad's high school, probably more than half the cars in the parking lot had a rifle in them.

My high school (urban, Miami), the numbers were a lot lower and you'd get in trouble for it.

Culture is part of the problem here, probably most of the problem.

 

[surfnole]

The militias were organized defense groups with muskets.

That's totally different than having every Joe in suburbia buy an AR-15 for himself.

And were the militias given guns when they joined or were they ordinary Joe's on farms?

 

[surfnole]

You obviously live in a different reality than I do.

We live in the same reality today. You have no idea what reality will be like in the future.

 

[BrianNole777]

And were the militias given guns when they joined or were they ordinary Joe's on farms?

Probably both and the guns were mostly muskets that shot 1 round a minute.

 

[Banditking]

Probably both and the guns were mostly muskets that shot 1 round a minute.

Why is that different? Prior to that, it would be bows and arrows. Weapons evolve.

 

[surfnole]

Probably both and the guns were mostly muskets that shot 1 round a minute.

The most advanced rifle technology of the time.

 

[BrianNole777]

Why is that different? Prior to that, it would be bows and arrows. Weapons evolve.

Because the rate of fire in an AR-15 is 300 times a musket; it's a different weapon entirely.

The Founding Father's were rebels, they weren't rigid conservatives; they wouldn't want the 2nd Amendment used like it is today, IMO.

 

[Banditking]

Because the rate of fire in an AR-15 is 300 times a musket; it's a different weapon entirely.

The Founding Father's were rebels, they weren't rigid conservatives; they wouldn't want the 2nd Amendment used like it is today, IMO.

Interesting. I think the founding fathers would be pretty unhappy with the amount of rules and regulations currently in play, personally.

People have lost their way relative to the understanding of liberalism. Would do them well to go back and read Jefferson.

There are liberals on both sides of the aisle. But, there are different species. As a popular media example, you can see bill maher frequently struggling with the lurch toward an illiberal ideology on the left.

 

[QuaZ2002]

I’ve always thought it was funny how people hold up the founding fathers as if their opinions were handed down by god. Completely ignoring that many of them were in favor of keeping humans as slaves and denying women any rights whatsoever. These men lived in a completely different world than we do now, but hey, they said we can form militias so gimme my AR and let me carry a gun around wherever I want no questions asked!

 

[Banditking]

I’ve always thought it was funny how people hold up the founding fathers as if their opinions were handed down by god. Completely ignoring that many of them were in favor of keeping humans as slaves and denying women any rights whatsoever. These men lived in a completely different world than we do now, but hey, they said we can form militias so gimme my AR and let me carry a gun around wherever I want no questions asked!

That’s very true. But, in my opinion, there was great wisdom to the constitution and bill of rights construction. Freedom and prosperity are hard to maintain. It’s a difficult balance.

 

[Banditking]

Anyone that makes an accused adulteress wear a red-letter A is fairly rigid. Also, the Salem witch trials and all witch trials were mainly carried out by Puritans who were considered to be quite conservative. You could argue otherwise but I would think the Puritans and Quakers who made up many of the founding fathers held much more rigid conservative and religious views than modern day conservatives or republicans. Most republicans these days are centrists or RINO's that have some right leaning views. Obviously, that leaves out the far right nutbags.

Yep. I’d argue that classical liberalism was the core ideology of the constitution and bill of rights. Jefferson was a big driver of that. Classical liberalism is definitely present in the modern day right, more so, in my opinion, than the modern day left. And by modern, I’m meaning the last 10 years or so has been a major shift to illiberalism in the left. The progressive movement is not an evolution of classical liberalism.

 

[noletaire]

We need to completely remove all special interest and corporate $ from our political system but I realize that’s pie in the sky as well.

Besides the issue of whom our leaders are beholden to, it would be awesome if all elected officials could focus 90% of their time on meaningful improvements and protecting all citizens’ (and good actor visitors’) access to and enjoyment of what America has to offer and to make our nation truly the best she can be for the most folks, and the remaining 10% (or less) fundraising and campaigning, vs the other way around.

Edit: the only non-govt organizational $$$ I’d allow in my fantasy world would be contributions to a Democracy Fund that is equally split among candidates, to supplement whatever base amount from our taxes goes to $X per race to fund enough marketing to inform voters of each candidate’s qualifications, vision, etc

I agree with all of this, especially the first sentence.
Part of the reason why I am against most foreign aid, for example sending billions to the Ukraine, is that I would rather see those billions used for those "meaningful improvements" such as:
1) protecting schools from gun violence
2) access to health care, including mental health care which is often overlooked
3) assisting the homeless
4) affordable housing
5) maintaining sources of clean water
etc, etc...
But instead we feed the war machine and let the munitions industries make billions... while millions of Americans suffer and our quality of life deteriorates...

 

[F4Gary]

The Founding Father's were rebels, they weren't rigid conservatives; they wouldn't want the 2nd Amendment used like it is today, IMO.

You don't get to speak for them.

 

[DFSNOLE]

You don't get to speak for them.

Others do constantly. Especially to push a particular viewpoint.