Gun Bans (independent, ideology, votes, New York)

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by BC1960

Umm, no. But we DO require them to be registered, licensed and insured. And the operators have to display a basic level of knowledge of how to operate them and obtain an operator's license before driving them.

Kind of makes sense for other things too, no?

Again, cars are not a right.

[Goodnight]

The NRA doesn't want any more gun restrictions period, this is just more deflection claiming loss of freedom.

[Hrw-500]

China threw their pinch of salt in the debate from what I saw on this article from Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1G703W

However, "restrict guns, protect rights", when it's come from China, isn't a bit strange?

[Boss]

Originally Posted by ringwise

Again, cars are not a right.

Neither is the right to own an AR, Scalia was the opinion writer on that one.

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by .sparrow.

Actually, it does.

Take away the 2nd amendment... the right of the people to be armed, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of your rights, including the freedom of speech can be chipped away as well.

I would point out that UK, in fact most of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, really almost the whole developed world except for US, has stricter gun control laws. All of those nations still have freedom of speech, voting rights, etc. In fact in a list of countries with the most economic freedom, the US came in at 11th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...onomic_freedom

NRA likes to keep trotting out this bogeyman of what will happen if ordinary citizens can't buy assault rifles, but I have yet to see an example of where an ordinary American with a gun prevented a takeover by either a foreign invader or tyrannical US government. I do recall that back in the 1980s, all of these Russian and eastern European citizens, who were so at the mercy of their government because they couldn't own guns, somehow managed to break up the Soviet Union and throw off the shackles of communism, with nary a shot fired.

[slackercruster]

Democrats' proposal would make possessing such a gun a fifth-degree felony punishable by up to 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine.

The bill would also require all Ohio gun sellers to report firearm and ammunition sales to the state attorney general's office.

In their bill, the Democrats defined "assault weapons" as any automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting 10 or more cartridges. Any semi-automatic weapon can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges. Many newer semi-automatic pistols come from the factory with 12- to 17-round magazines.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ban/355993002/

[retiredcop111]

Originally Posted by slackercruster

Democrats' proposal would make possessing such a gun a fifth-degree felony punishable by up to 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine.

The bill would also require all Ohio gun sellers to report firearm and ammunition sales to the state attorney general's office.

In their bill, the Democrats defined "assault weapons" as any automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting 10 or more cartridges. Any semi-automatic weapon can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges. Many newer semi-automatic pistols come from the factory with 12- to 17-round magazines.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ban/355993002/

Well that bill will go nowhere. In fact when they bring bills like this forward gun owners and politicians really will dig their heels in.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by wallflash

The 2nd A does not exist to "secure " your rights. The reason the 2nd exists is stated very clearly in the text , and also can be gleaned from the history of the constitutional convention that wrote it. It exists for exactly the reason the always ignored first part says it does, to provide a means of arming a civilian army via state militias ( and not Billy Joe & Jim Bob's Hawg Hunting Militia). If the history of the convention and the arguing over the precise wording is researched, you find that the states were very much concerned about the power of a central federal government, and so wanted a means of ensuring the rights of the STATES from an strong federal government.


Gun ownership was understood to be an accepted way of life for the individual. The 2nd aims to protect the states right to keep and maintain its own militias.

Not according to the Supreme Court in the Heller/McDonald decision that confirmed it is an individual right unrelated to service in a militia. You can argue with them if you like, but that aspect of the 2nd Amendment has already been settled by the court.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the ...

"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Oh good. That should ensure that Ohio stays Republican for years.

[Jimmyp25]

they just create these bills to pacify people in their voter base.