WetEV wrote:Arms, when the Bill of Rights was written, fired 3 rounds per minute or less.
Yes - and they were the top of the line weapons used by militaries all over the world at the time.
WetEV wrote:Arms, redefined today, fire 600 rounds per minute or more.
Please cite examples of any firearms covered by the 2nd Amendment as limited by the National Firearms Act of of 1934 as amended that fire "600 rounds per minute or more."
WetEV wrote:Original meaning would protect the right to keep and bare arms as existed when the Bill of Rights was written.
New meaning protects the right to new arms, not old.
This is incorrect as 'original meaning' placed no limitations on the arms. The debates on this topic prior to and since the start of this country placed zero limitation on the production date of arms (which includes knives, swords, and bayonets, BTW - which have a rate of fire of somewhat south of zero per any unit of time), or on their rate of fire, or their ability to inflict damage. Recall, if you care to, that privateers had their own ships and cannons.
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
A Pennsylvanian, June 18, 1789, as published in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette
The Origin of the Second Amendment: A documentary history of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792
, Edited by David E. Young, Page 671
Since the intent of the right was for both personal defense, defense of one's family and property, as well as the defense of the town/county/state/nation - even if an out of control government turned the standing military on the populace, it was expected that the capability of arms in private hands would match those carried by any standing army. Indeed, the capability of weapons did evolve from the days the first Europeans landed on North America.
WetEV wrote:Is a 2 year old shooting mom a criminal? New definitions again.
It's not a 'new definition' - it appears to simply be a poor attempt to confuse the issue. A negligent discharge is the responsibility of the adult, not the child. The adult erred and karma was rapid.
Is there a specific piece you wish to examine? Or are you in this thread going to play the part of the denier in threads about climate? I ask not to inflame but so that I may devote appropriate time to your queries or statements.