So if passing laws doesn't prevent people from committing crimes, let's get rid of all of them.

@MayorOfCrushtown Well, I don't see why semiautomatic rifles are necessary, or large capacity magazines, unless you're planning to shoot up the Walmart.

@LordShadowfire i get that...... but, which ones do you think should be legal for a citizen to own ??

@MayorOfCrushtown I mean, if I didn't specifically come out as against it, then I'm not against it. I don't see a problem with having a rifle or shotgun for home defense, or a little something in your purse for stopping power. I don't even have a problem with it hunting rifle with a laser scope if you want to go out and bag your own meat.

@MayorOfCrushtown asks I think "Constitutional Originalism" is utter rubbish. BUT.

If you're a self-proclaimed "originalist" like Amy Covid Barrett or the late great Antonin Scalia, then rapid fire weapons like the AR-15s aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. To an Originalist, the unvarying meaning of the Constitution is what the words meant to the average person at the time they were written.

Which brings us to the question, what did it mean to "bear arms" in 1789? Well, you can't carry a cannon, so that's out. Bearable arms meant muskets and blunderbusses and pistolaires - muzzle loaders with a low refire rate. That's the sum total of the "original public meaning" of arms a person can bear.

All the modern weapons; pump action, semi auto, full auto, 100 shot drum magazine, those would be outside the purview of the 2nd Amendment. Of course actual right-wing Originalists pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to be "original" about and which parts to let evolve over time. And they always let the 2nd evolve. Yeah, I agree, it's a stupid judicial philosophy, but properly applied, most modern guns aren't protected by the 2nd according to true Constitutional Originalism.

@MayorOfCrushtown Do you need to shoot your own wild game in order to put food on the table?

@MayorOfCrushtown no firearm with a capacity of more than 7 to 10 rounds or the capability of accepting high capacity magazines that allow for instant replacement of magazines should be legal.

@justanothername I actually consider that a legitimate reason to own a gun. Shooting wild deer, for example, performs a public service. There are too few predators right now keeping the deer population in check, which is a recipe for disaster.

@justanothername
I used to shoot rabbits to eat. Didn't need to as I could afford to buy food, but I like the taste of wild rabbit and they are classified as vermin over here. A friend of mine shoots deer, same thing; taste good and are a pest.

Not many people would have to shoot to provide their family with food, but I personally think it's acceptable. The only condition should be that the shooter should be able to bring down the animal humanely with one shot. If it takes you more than one round to take down your prey, you shouldn't be out there.

@Bushranger
Q. Why don't more hunters eat rabbit?
A. They get tired of the feet going *slap face repeatedly with both hands*.

@justanothername nope. I don’t hunt. I have one firearm. Self protection. The police here are not dependable. Having worked in prison 32 yrs, I see the potential for violence. I hope I never have to use it. I will if I have to.

@MayorOfCrushtown I can respect that. A weapon in the home to protect the home is perfectly sensible.

@MayorOfCrushtown Anything they have a legitimate reason to own, subject to them being mentally stable, law abiding citizens.

@MayorOfCrushtown That makes sense. It’s the people who are stockpiling extensive arsenals in the name of the 2nd Amendment, about whom I worry.