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.
Because humans are not disposable! You cannot destroy one on a whim. Is human life that cheap to you? A cold heart is something outright scary, and is not any better than the animals that feel like killing for shoes.
I'm a proponent of the death penalty...but I'd like to enforce it at a more localized level. If you've been proven to be a danger to others, you will die. Nothing wrong with that.
I'll tell you up front I am an advocate of the 2cd Amendment, CCLs, and the shooting sports in general. Translate that to responsible ownership and use. Now that we've got that out of the way:
I would hope our political leaders think about what happened during Prohibition years ago - outright bans on things tend to foster a lot of black market activity. I might also posit that a lot of people who had no particular interest in firearms and the NRA might suddenly find themselves wanting to be armed and participating in the shooting sports just because it was deemed "bad" by our legislature. Such was the unhappy tenure of the Volstead Act and our relatively short-lived 18th Amendment.
Some would argue that those years heralded the appearance of the big-time gangsters and the mob who made lotsa dough off the illegal importation and distribution of booze. The law was a bit vague on what exactly constituted an intoxicating substance, and even small time operators exploited these and/or flouted the law entirely and ran little whiskey mills all over the United States. To many, it represented a way to turn a little cash during the dark years of the depression. According to what I've read, among them Groucho Marxs' autobiography, a lot of people drank, sometimes to excess, not because they really liked the stuff but because it was fashionable.
My point is, an outright ban on firearms would be a very, very difficult thing to implement and take action on. If history is any indicator, I wonder if an attempt to add an amendment to ban firearms wouldn't result in some catastrophic circumstances. As much as there's numerous people who would like nothing better, they have a couple problems....
1) For better or worse, the 2cd is an integral part of our constitution. A reading of companion works about our founding fathers will reveal a lot about their intent in this regard.
2) As poor as most people's historical awareness is, I think most would agree that an attempt to run a "house to house" confiscation program would be extremely problematic. I might even go as far as to say there would be blood over this. Our country is most certainly populated with people who are content with a more socialistic bent, but there are an awful lot who regard their right of ownership and defense seriously. They would not cow easily.
3) About the only way to get this done would be to make it a crime. Ammunition and reloading components would have to be completely banned, and you'd have an unbelievable task trying to find and confiscate all the caches present. It would be at the very least an extremely expensive, decades long process. I can't even speculate on how it would be done.
4) I think you might throw in that the economic impact would be considerable, and more than you might think. Fish and Game personnel in every state would be in chaos because they rely on hunters to control game populations. There would have to be reams of new laws to allow certain types of use under certain conditions. It would be a monumental undertaking with more controversy that you could imagine.
There's more, but I think you get my drift...just my $.02, no, $.05 worth...
I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court ruling on a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and could easily be resolved by remedial legislation), and making a decision that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
What I always found interesting is that most police chiefs and administrators in large cities appear to favor individuals giving up their guns, yet the majority of rank and file policemen believe in private ownership of guns.
I have 2 friends who are Chicago cops and both advocate private ownership of guns no matter what the law says and no matter what the senior management of the police department says, even though Chicago has a ban on individual ownership of guns. Their attitude is that the cops can't be everywhere to protect you. There will always be a period of time that you are on your own until help can arrive.
I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court ruling on a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and could easily be resolved by remedial legislation), and making a decision that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
I certainly will concede this is an excellent point, but I have to ask a question or two; and forgive me because legal discourse is not exactly my forte'.
It seems using this plan would create a tremendous amount of legal hardballing between the states and the federal government. How would the states be able to collectively pass laws that might contradict the feds? Would we do it at the Initiative/Proposition level, or have to have lawmakers introduce bills at the legislative level? At this point, there's quite a bit of difference between state laws concerning the possession, use, and carrying of guns. It seems to me that Congress would have to pass a set of laws that provided for universal state to state acceptance of criteria for their use. I'm not sure, even if Constitutionally sound, that that bird's going to fly.
The representatives from my state have been fair to good at keeping gun owners in mind at the congressional level. Debatable whether it does any good. Legally, would we have to have them put legislation together that provided for an amendment to the Constitution that was absolutely sound in it's wording?
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court shouldn't be delegating our rights to us; rather, my understanding is they are supposed to interpret how the constitution applies to cases presented before them. I admit sometimes it appears that personal bias amongst the justices leads them to make decisions that are less than understandable; sometimes that happens when you try and split a point too far.
When I look at the crime statistics for areas with and without restrictive gun control, it makes me think that two phrases, "promote the general welfare...insure domestic tranquillity", come called into question. Crime statistics seem to back up the claim that less restrictive gun control promotes both those conditions and should therefore be universal. I admit that's a bit of a generality, but maybe it helps illustrate my belief that consolidating gun laws under a single, simple amendment (such as the 2cd) might be a smart move. The federal government is not about to give up control on something as important as firearms transfer, ownership, and use. Therefore, I have to believe that acting on the congessional level has to remain on the list of options.
I certainly will concede this is an excellent point, but I have to ask a question or two; and forgive me because legal discourse is not exactly my forte'.
It seems using this plan would create a tremendous amount of legal hardballing between the states and the federal government. How would the states be able to collectively pass laws that might contradict the feds? Would we do it at the Initiative/Proposition level, or have to have lawmakers introduce bills at the legislative level? At this point, there's quite a bit of difference between state laws concerning the possession, use, and carrying of guns. It seems to me that Congress would have to pass a set of laws that provided for universal state to state acceptance of criteria for their use. I'm not sure, even if Constitutionally sound, that that bird's going to fly.
The representatives from my state have been fair to good at keeping gun owners in mind at the congressional level. Debatable whether it does any good. Legally, would we have to have them put legislation together that provided for an amendment to the Constitution that was absolutely sound in it's wording?
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court shouldn't be delegating our rights to us; rather, my understanding is they are supposed to interpret how the constitution applies to cases presented before them. I admit sometimes it appears that personal bias amongst the justices leads them to make decisions that are less than understandable; sometimes that happens when you try and split a point too far.
When I look at the crime statistics for areas with and without restrictive gun control, it makes me think that two phrases, "promote the general welfare...insure domestic tranquillity", come called into question. Crime statistics seem to back up the claim that less restrictive gun control promotes both those conditions and should therefore be universal. I admit that's a bit of a generality, but maybe it helps illustrate my belief that consolidating gun laws under a single, simple amendment (such as the 2cd) might be a smart move. The federal government is not about to give up control on something as important as firearms transfer, ownership, and use. Therefore, I have to believe that acting on the congessional level has to remain on the list of options.
California. Marijuana laws. State law allows certain people to possess and use. Federal law, which supersedes state law, criminalizes marijuana possession.
where do you go from here? The FBI can bust someone in California, for something the state says is acceptable.
California. Marijuana laws. State law allows certain people to possess and use. Federal law, which supersedes state law, criminalizes marijuana possession.
where do you go from here? The FBI can bust someone in California, for something the state says is acceptable.
if the supreme court upholds the second amendment and its wording. Congress shall pass no law concerning gun control. Thus there will be no law to supersede state laws.
if the supreme court upholds the second amendment and its wording. Congress shall pass no law concerning gun control. Thus there will be no law to supersede state laws.
And in THAT case, the states can...and already do...restrict gun ownership when and where they want...and allow cities to do so too.
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.
