I simply think that this is a situation where "what was the case in 1791" is quite a bit different from what exists today. However, I am also a realist. The 2nd Amendment is never going to be further amended, and there will be plenty of people who will argue that it is "holy" in its present form. I seek no argument from any of them.

My perspective is simply that of a "responsible gun owner" who became addicted to the sport of marksmanship while I was still in Boy Scouts. While I have never "fired a shot in anger" and I will do my damned well best to avoid ever having to do so: if I shoot, that first-shot will hit the target exactly where I placed it.

However, I am very aware that there are many people who "own guns" who have not really "taken the time to learn." And yes, this genuinely scares me. When I drive down the highway, I know to expect that everyone in the other car is at least: "a licensed driver." When I arrive at any and every intersection, and proceed according to "right of way" rules, I implicitly assume that all of the other drivers have also learned these conventions, and have passed some sort of "license" test to demonstrate it.

The 1791 text never had to consider any of this. (It was written in an entirely different time, and immediately after the conclusion of a [successful] guerilla war.) And yet, I realize that the text will never be changed.

Having been a rider and in a couple of small accidents, I support helmet laws. In one of those it was minor, but without a helmet I would have been dead. I worked in a hospital for 11 years, and saw things come into the ER that would flip you out. Helmets and leathers are survival gear, and most car drivers are NOT looking our for you.

I support an armed and well regulated militia, and that is satisfied by the existence of a State Police, National Guard, and US Military. I support hunting and target shooting, but the second amendment does not mention any of those extra uses, and my reading of it does not support the "a gun in every hand" theory that is currently popular. I support sensible regulation, and have no problem with financial incentives to encourage responsible behavior and standards.

Show me an example of a bad actor killing 20 or 80 people in less than 20 minutes in the USA with a knife and I will take that a lot more seriously. Until then I assume you are just acting stupid for effect.

Just before and while in college there was a period of almost 3 years in which my only means of transportation was my motorcycle both on thew road and in off-road Scrambles events. This was before helmet laws but I almost always wore one and except when riding to work I wore my leathers, too. I probably looked comical with dress clothes, white shirt and tie with a Buco helmet on but it seemed a question of priorities to me BUT that was to protect ME! Why should there be any laws protecting ourselves from ourselves? As adults we still need pseudo parents? Pffff!

Bottom Line - I support protective gear. I don't support laws requiring them. Nobody riding without a helmet ever endangered, let alone hurt anyone else.

Besides the fact that there are edged weapons that can accomplish such violence, there are too many substances that can also do that if someone is of the mind. You may recall that those 2 criminals from Columbine only failed to triple their body count because they were inept at exploding a bottle of propane. Good thing they didn't decide on glass bottles of gasoline. There are numerous household and garage chemicals that could wipe out hundreds if not thousands (how about a truck full of fertilizer?) should we outlaw those, too?

Such regulatory messes are mere band-aids at best and head us to Authoritarianism at worst, despite good intentions. They do NOT address the causes of why anyone in their right mind would ever want to commit mass murder. That, IMHO, is where the focus should be, The Social Contract.

REPersonally I think trying to legislate what you can THINK is far worse than legislating what you must do to buy firearms to keep them out of the hands of those who do NOT think!

But that may just be me.

I have a sister in law who is widowed. Her kids, his kids, do not have him or his income. The guy that hit him should have gone to jail, but just lost his license for a year. Tell me the lack of a helmet cost no one but the rider again. Because I did not believe it the first time.

wpeckham, I am sincerely sorry for what befell your sister-in-law. It's a legit tragedy but it was not the responsibility of the government to protect her from her husband's bad judgment, in my view. Not knowing the circumstances of the accident I can't comment on that side but it seems to me if his driving was negligent enough to lose his license for a year, I'd think she could have sued him, possibly successfully especially had he worn a helmet.

By that logic the government should not be mandating the use of seatbelts either. OR brakes. No, that kind of protection is one of the things that is EXACTLY what the government is for.

Correct.
Correct again.
The government should be able to 'advise' it is a good idea by showing stats and such. But not mandate it. Nope notta.
Personal responsibility not government overreach. Not what government is for.

It's one thing to mandate what EQUIPMENT ON HARDWARE is required ie: Vehicles that have accelerator pedals to Go also require brake pedals to Stop, but quite another to require PEOPLE to use/wear hardware. Personally I am opposed to seat belt laws as well. Wearing them should be strongly advised for anyone who wishes to stay alive as well as avoid hospital and insurance bills and required for children, just not adults. Children need parenting. Adults don't. I don't have a problem with cars designed to require seat belts (like the ones that activate as one closes the doors) because they require a choice to not use them.

FWIW I think I recall that some legislators wanted to require some sort of seatbelts on motorcycles which if true serves to show how willing some government officials who know zero about the subject are willing to propose ridiculous legislation to control what they don't understand. If it's just wild, unsubstantiated rumor, I'm sure there are other instances of legal inanity. Again, it is not the job of government to be parents for adults "protecting" us from ourselves, If a thing is made available for commerce is dangerous in some way the government has every right, if not the duty, to require that information be readily available.

I don't doubt that there is no shortage of idiots who actually need "When popcorn is removed from the microwave the contents will be HOT!" but that doesn't mean there should be laws that one must wear oven mitts when popping corn or operating an oven - microwave, gas, electric, charcoal, solar or wood.

more tragic is about the kids, fatherless. not income.

I have to agree but again that's not govt. responsibility. That's adult responsibility. In my view anyb good resulting from such legislation is powerfully outweighed by the very bad outcomes possible, including just the legal precedent. Boiling by degrees is still dead.

Yeah, because it would be just terrible if fewer people died! ?????

What does that have to do with anything. You 'only' have control over your 'own' destiny. Life and death are all part of life. You shouldn't 'force' your (or mine) ideas on others. Articulate them, yes. Debate them, yes. But don't 'force' them just because you think it's the way to go... It is that simple. Not hard to understand. I think wearing a seatbelt for example is a good idea, so I wear one most times. But if Joe Normal wants to cruise without one, that should be 'his' choice. If I want to carry concealed, that is my choice. You (and me) choose what risk to incur and that is that. Not the governments responsibility or your responsibly to force me into wearing a seatbelt or packing a firearm. That's the problem with a segment of our population. If they don't like it, or afraid, or paranoid, they try to ban it. If they think something is safer, they try to make a law to force that something on us. If they think the sky is falling, they again try to force us into something we don't want (think EVs). Weird way of thinking when living in a supposed to be 'free' country.