Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not going to argue in this thread. I'll just state my opinion and leave it at that.
I don't think it's unfair that every single firearm be registered and licensed and re-licensed every year with the current owner and a ballistic sample taken.
Cut out half of the conceal and carry permits within 5 years. And then cut that amount in half the next 5 years. I work with a nut who I wouldn't trust with a BB gun who has a C & C permit. That alone tells me there is something wrong with the system.
The 2nd amendment guarantees people the ownership of firearms, but like everything that can be regulated. We DO NOT have to let them carry them outside of their property. Freedom of speech is protected, but it's also regulated.
If you want to own guns that's great, but you are responsible for them should be the spirit of future gun laws.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the MASSIVE bureaucracy that must first be created in order to license over 100 million people annually?
So... because I'm gonna be a sport today, tell us whether you recognize that if the government can issue a license to own a firearm, couldn't they also DENY a license to own a firearm? How would this NOT violate the 2nd Amendment?
Lets assume those who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't foresee Americans walking into schools, theatres, Churches, Neighborhoods, or whereever and shooting innocent people.
Why should we assume something that isn't even true? Of course the Framers foresaw that.
BTW, they also foresaw people needing to overpower their own government when that government started abusing and violating their rights.
So many liberals base their agendas on the idea that everyone except themselves, is stupid.
The Federal Government should not have a role in firearms laws.
I agree.
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed by the government,
That's correct. The 2nd even provides a reason WHY that right shall not be infringed. Not that it needed to provide a reason.
Quote:
and any firearms restriction that is passed down from the federal level constitutes an infringement.
Also correct.
Quote:
Any laws relating to firearms should be passed by State Legislatures.
Incorrect. If the 2nd amendment writers had wanted the amendment to apply only to the Fed govt, they would have explicitly written it that way... just as they did the 1st amendment.
When the Bill of Rights was passed and ratified, most states had official state religions. And the 1st amendment was carefully written to avoid conflicting with that fact. It said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It put no such restriction on state or local governments.
If the Framers had wanted only the Fed Govt to be covered by the next amendment they put in, they would have written something like, "Congress shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
But they didn't, did they?
Or, they could have written "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed."
But they didn't write that either, did they? Unlike what they put in the 4th amendment about searches and seizures.
The 2nd amendment says that NO GOVERNMENT can make a law restricting or taking away the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Lets assume those who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't foresee Americans walking into schools, theatres, Churches, Neighborhoods, or whereever and shooting innocent people.
Ok, I can't get past this sentence. The OP needs to crack a history book before posting statements like this. The atrocities committed by criminals and both armies before, during, and after the American Revolutionary War made Sandy Hook look like a school-yard scuffle. They didn't HAVE to "foresee" these atrocities because they were already happening. And yet the 2nd amendment got written just the way it did. Pretty much every single household had a firearm back then, and the country's founders thought it a good idea that they keep them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
We DO NOT have to let them carry them outside of their property.
Many anti-gun types think that if all guns disappear that they'll suddenly be safe from criminals, and that the "police will protect them from the bad guys." This is completely and totally wrong. Court case after court proves that neither the police nor the state has any duty or obligation to protect any citizen. The most famous is Warren v. District of Columbia, but there are plenty of others.
If the police agree to take responsibility for my safety, then I'll agree to leave my weapon at home. Incidentally, that already occurs in places like courthouses, jails, and airports. No guns allowed, but there is ramped up police presence to compensate, and I'm OK with that.
Except that in order for that to work, they would have to drastically increase police presence (and cost) everywhere. Before long, we'd look like England with CCTV cameras on every street corner, and we all know how well that's doing to protect the citizens from violent crime. I'm not so sure I'm ready to live in "1984 world". Are you?
So... because I'm gonna be a sport today, tell us whether you recognize that if the government can issue a license to own a firearm, couldn't they also DENY a license to own a firearm? How would this NOT violate the 2nd Amendment?
An excellent point.
I'd like very much to see an answer to this question.
Ok, I can't get past this sentence. The OP needs to crack a history book before posting statements like this.
True of most people who think they oppose the 2nd amendment.
The people who wrote the 2nd amendment, cracked lots of history books before they did so. They wrote it the way it is, for many very good reasons.
Quote:
If the police agree to take responsibility for my safety, then I'll agree to leave my weapon at home.
I won't. There's never a cop around when you need one.
In fact, criminals make a habit of arranging it that way before they do their thing. They scout an area for cops, and make sure there aren't any around, and then wait for you to show up and mug you.
Quote:
Except that in order for that to work, they would have to drastically increase police presence (and cost) everywhere.
Yup. We would have to be come, exactly, a "police state".
The best defence against crime (though not perfect, no defense is that), is an armed populace.
Not coincidentally, that's also the best defense against the higher crime of tyranny.
So, does a US citizen have the right to protect themselves from a Invasion of North Koreans? What about a right to armour your home from a asteroid strike? or the right to escape your vehicle in a crash (thus no seat belts).
I would say that an individual doesn't have the right to buy and use a weapon that increases his/her cost to society (through suicide, mistakes, spousal abuse, or accident) and does not improve his/her chances of defending themselves.
Buying a gun endangers a family, does not protect it. I have no qualms with people buying guns for hunting, or gun practice, or etc. But the people who say they need it for protection (criminals, zombies, russians, whatever)
those people. . I do call critically thinking flawed.
Buying a gun does not endanger a family. Improper storage or use endangers a family, but not ownership of a firearm.
It's none of your business why someone owns a firearm. Some people own them because they like to own firearms. You have no more business telling them why they should own a firearm than they have telling you what color tie you should wear to work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
