Stefan Metzeler, Fighting for gun rights since 1990. Swiss army & Body-guard grade gun training.
Jefferson wrote in his diary that he had observed people losing their temper in public places, e.g. after drinking and shooting at each other.
He considered this an entirely inevitable part of human nature and hence one more reason to NEVER leave his own rifle at home.
The founders had seen canons and explosives and would have had no problem at all imagining the technological progress.
This entire focus on the alleged harm by guns or even more specifically, "assault rifles" is absurd:
rifles account for only about 350 - 400 deaths per year
more people die, every year, from being hit with fists or feet than by rifle bullets
you exaggerate the risk of guns vs. not having guns, such as in most European countries, say France
you ENTIRELY omit including the positive effects of guns. Based on the most conservative studies, guns are used to prevent crimes close to 1 million times per year. One study by the LA Times found more than 3.5 MILLION self-defense uses.
So under the FALSE idea that a gun ban would prevent something like a Las Vegas shooting, you'd disarm 200 million people, probably massively increasing violent crime and homicide by reversing these curves here:
In Nice, a TRUCK was used to murder 84 people - MORE THAN IN THE LAS VEGAS SHOOTING!
And in Paris, at the Bataclan theater, 130 people were murdered with ILLEGAL AK-47s!
So clearly, the criminals are NOT limited by any gun laws.
But here is the interesting part:
MOST of the victims at the Bataclan did NOT die of gunshot wounds!
They died because the police took almost 2 hours to intervene, giving the terrorists ample time to massacre every single surviving victim by stabbing them to death in the most gruesome ways - and not a single victim had been armed, as gun carry is prohibited, in France.
Just 1 or 2 concert goers with guns might have slowed down or stopped the terrorist attack and would probably have saved dozens of lives.
Horrifying details of the Bataclan Theatre massacre revealed
Would they have supported FREEDOM OF SPEECH if they had known that it would be possible to distribute information almost instantaneously, worldwide, through the Internet?
Well of course!
And would they have supported the right to bear assault rifles and any other type of weapons?
To the extent that government has such weapons, the civilians should have them, too!
That's what the 2nd Amendment says:
The "militia", back then the only armed force of government, had to be REGULATED = CONTROLLED, so that government would not suddenly become tyrannical.
And who should CONTROL the armed forces of government?
THE PEOPLE and because of this: "the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!
The suggestion that "the people" should only have muskets while the government has assault rifles and machine guns would have horrified them!