Ok, and on another note, in the above article, there is a quite by Kyle:
The founding fathers "had the same weapons the military did," he said. "We don't even have that today -- but don't try to take what I've already got."


God rest Chris Kyles soul, but I need to make a comment about this.....

Really??? this guy and others want to keep trying to put what life was like in 1776 to 2012??? First off, the guns in that day were single shot muskets (sorry if I make a gun mistake here, I dont know much gun history)..... The founding fathers DID NOT have high powered rifles or guns capable of killing multiple people in a short period of time!! Had they had that, the entire world would be the under US control! (exaggerating)

Guns back then took a minute or to to reload, and only one person was harmed or killed at a time.......

Ok, if what this quote states is the NRA's case for the second amendment to stand, then WE today should have the same guns our Founding Fathers had!! All gun manufacturers should only be able to make single shot gun powder muskets!!!

My $0.02 worths......

Precisely. That's ALSO all the military had.

The military is comprised of CITIZENS, not special snowflakes. To draw a line and say "citizens" don't "need" something is attempting to create elitism where none belongs.

I read GC before I read the news today. Sad story, seemed like a nice guy.

There also wasn't a military in the sense we think of today. If there was a standing army at all, it was a tiny one.

and ... ?

The fact remains that they are still citizens, and not "entitled" to more than the citizenry has. Both should be empowered to buy the tools needed for the job(s) - whether or not someone else thinks it's overkill.

You can't compare the situation today and the situation in 1789. It's apples and oranges. The Bill or Rights and the Constitution still apply today, but the context which within they work is so different. Because of that, they can't be expected to be applied the same way. When the 2nd amendment was passed, every state had a militia and a major war had just been won by that militia. Now there is a powerful standing army and the various states don't maintain a militia at all any more. Only 22 states have militias, and most of those are more for disaster relief then for actually military actions.

And the Supreme Court held - in OUR times - that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms.

We don't use the militia to fight wars any more, but our military is still the people. They're not "special", even if they have need of tools different from mine. There's no logical reason, only legislative reasons, the people cannot have the same tools no matter their profession.

To be fair, lots of folks want to overturn SCOTUS precedent other than DC vs. Heller. Some of them even have pretty decent legal arguments. You're talking about a 5-4 case here.

That said, D.C. vs. Hellar does allow for the government to place reasonable limitations on firearms ownership, so there's that.

Maybe some gun reform makes sense, but I haven't seen a single proposal from this administration, including the mental health database, which would be anything but a bandaid on a bullet hole.

They are heavily screened, heavily trained and heavily regulated. That makes them different then the average Joe on the street.

I think it's important to understand the likely reason for the second amendment. While it's important for self defense I think one of the major reasons it was included is that an armed population of citizens can never truly be ruled by tyranny. The founding fathers likely wanted it as a way to keep the government in check by the threat of an armed populace if they tried anything.

Yes, and we can see how well that is working in Syria......

Yes, and no.. Apparently even "the deadliest sniper in American history" and all his "training" couldn't save him from someone with "issues" whatever they may be....

"Live by the gun, die by the gun". I would like it better if we just went back to the Middle Ages where all we had were swords and horses.... Guns regardless of who has them causes a lot more emotional suffering in the big picture.....

We certainly saw how well disarming citizens works in North Korea and Germany circa 1933...

That's part of it, but the roots of the Second Amendment are more varied and complicated than that, and different people and factions had different motives and considerations for supporting it (or being concerned about it).

Other concerns that might have carried some weight with some people were self-defense, law enforcement and even suppressing slave revolts and other insurrections.

And then there's the reason stated in the amendment, which since it is mentioned could reasonably be presumed to be the primary reason: to facilitate the organization of militias. Since militias are under government control, that is not the same as citizens opposing tyrannical governments.

Ok, those governments are horrible, but have either country had any mass shootings? (And I'm not referring to events leading to WWII, but recently say post 1970s).

I ask because I have not seen any media converge on such things.....