Is the Second Amendment necessary? (Brown, crimes, felonies, Bush)

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by Myghost

No exclusions, but no inclusions either.

If you can own a hand-gun, a shot-gun, and rifles that were designed for hunting animals, not humans, then the right is granted. There is no infringement of bearing arms, if you are allowed to bear arms.

I will grant you that maybe we should allow AR15's (for example) or maybe we shouldn't. But shutting down the discussion by a disingenuous statement like you made doesn't get us anywhere.

Also, the constitution has been amended over our history. The problem is that the pro-gun side is not willing to even discuss it, so they make distractions like the misleading statement you made above.

For the record, I am pro-gun, and I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, and don't plan to give them up. I am also of the mindset that this problem will benefit from open, honest discussion, but it has to be allowed in order to have a chance at succeeding.

We can do better, and we can do so without banning guns, nor granting nukes.

A well reasoned and thoughtful rejoinder on a topic not known for those tenets.

Kudos!

[Myghost]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

If they have completed their sentences including any parole or probation....

Yes.

If someone is deemed suitable to reintegrated into society, then they should have 100% of their rights restored.

Especially if they were convicted of a non violent felony.

You show doubt of your own statement. If they were to be given 100% rights, there would be no "especially". You know it deep down inside, but it goes against your wish, so you can't say it.

But you know in your heart, that the constitution does not get unregulated rights to own any and all guns, it grants uninfringed rights bear arms, and that is different. I am for the 2A as it is written, but not for it as you choose to interpret.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

How does a nuclear bomb protect the citizens from the tyrannical government?

Nuclear bomb is a strategical weapon against other countries.

Please try something else.

You really cannot see how that would work? LOL The founding fathers intended the govt to fear the people, an equally armed public or regulated militias would surely do that imo.

Its clever how modern Govt has swayed public opinion on who should own weapons like this, majority of people truly believe Govt and law enforcement should have the upper hand, but thats not the way it was supposed to be.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by Myghost

You show doubt of your own statement. If they were to be given 100% rights, there would be no "especially". You know it deep down inside, but it goes against your wish, so you can't say it.

But you know in your heart, that the constitution does not get unregulated rights to own any and all guns, it grants uninfringed rights bear arms, and that is different. I am for the 2A as it is written, but not for it as you choose to interpret.

Or your interpretation.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Myghost

No exclusions, but no inclusions either.

If you can own a hand-gun, a shot-gun, and rifles that were designed for hunting animals, not humans, then the right is granted. There is no infringement of bearing arms, if you are allowed to bear arms.

I will grant you that maybe we should allow AR15's (for example) or maybe we shouldn't. But shutting down the discussion by a disingenuous statement like you made doesn't get us anywhere.

Also, the constitution has been amended over our history. The problem is that the pro-gun side is not willing to even discuss it, so they make distractions like the misleading statement you made above.

For the record, I am pro-gun, and I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, and don't plan to give them up. I am also of the mindset that this problem will benefit from open, honest discussion, but it has to be allowed in order to have a chance at succeeding.

We can do better, and we can do so without banning guns, nor granting nukes.

Unfortunately giving up gun rights, no matter how small, also benefits the govt, it allows tyranny to grow and spread unchecked...that can NEVER be permitted.

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Which hunting rifle has 100 round magazines?

Any gun with a detachable magazine is only limited in the number of rounds by the length of the magazine.

If you can make a 5 round detachable magazine, you can also make a 100 round detachable magazine.

Hunting rifle, handgun, shotgun......whatever.

You just need a longer box and a bigger spring.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that all semi auto weapons will function equally well with a bigger magazine.....but that's another subject.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Any gun with a detachable magazine is only limited in the number of rounds by the length of the magazine.

If you can make a 5 round detachable magazine, you can also make a 100 round detachable magazine.

Hunting rifle, handgun, shotgun......whatever.

You just need a longer box and a bigger spring.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that all semi auto weapons will function equally well with a bigger magazine.....but that's another subject.

Why all the hoopla over magazine capacity? It just takes one bullet to kill?

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

If you use 5 round magazines, you'll swap them 20 times to fire 100 shots, so you'll spend a lot more time swapping than if you use a larger magazine.

With minimal practice, It takes about 2-4 seconds to swap a mag, depending on the gun and the shooter.

Not much of a hindrance for a shooter in most gun free zones where there are a lot of people in confined spaces with limited exits.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I've never needed a gun to speak my mind.

But, using your POV, we would have had a very different America if in the days of slavery and Jim Crow all Blacks had guns. Really what you're saying is might makes right. And you assume that if the government came down hard on guns that the majority of people would support an uprising. I think you're way wrong on that, particularly since the majority of people in this country do not own guns. The majority of American are not in favor of these militia groups.

Why are you hung up on "the majority"?? We do not live in a pure democracy. It is always tossed around by "feelers" as if it is the only thing that matters.

I bet most of people in this country would like it if they did not have to work or pay taxes. Should we outlaw working and paying taxes?

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The Constitutional lays out a means to remove a persons right through due process. If a right is removed in that way, it is not unconstitutional.

Not for the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't. It provides a means for government to search a man's home and take his possessions against his will - they must get a warrant that limits the search to certain items. But there is no such provision in the 2nd amendment. It is ironclad against any such exception.