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.
Show me anywhere in the second amendment where it says anything about hunting. It doesn't say anything about what type of weapons or what the purpose for.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I doubt people will follow through with this type of legislation.
Whether or not people follow through with such legislation right now is not the issue. The issue is that there is the will to propose this type of legislation in the first place. Apparently there is the will in an increasing number of states.
Those on the side of banning assault rifles will never understand (or even try to understand) the position of law abiding gun owners. We need to accept that.
Those on the side of the constitution need to remember this come next election. They need to pay attention to what is happening in their state, what is happening in their neighboring states and what is happening in other parts of the country related to this issue.
I understand and believe in the slippery slope argument. Those who dont, won't, until an issue arises that affects THEM and their lives in a very real way.
The first is not unlimited. Yelling fire is not legally protected and you can be arrested for it, thus you have no Free Speech in that case. In order for it to be free, there can't be consequences to saying it.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech means you are free to express your opinions without persecution from the local, state, or federal government. But that speech is not unlimited, because not all forms of speech are protected. Inciting violence is not protected.
By your ridiculous logic, there is no law against murder since you can go out and kill someone any time you want.
Freedom goes only until it runs into your (or anyone else's) freedom. If my pursuit of happiness means playing music all day long then that is great. Until it runs into your freedom to sleep and lead a peaceful life. If we are both in a public place then you can walk away. If you are my neighbor, you can't just pick up and move so I have to either keep it down or the police will do it for me.
Same with murder. The right to life is the most important right. Infringing on that right via murder has consequences. Those consequences should be harsh and swift unlike they are now.
Bringing my "ridiculous logic" back on track - ownership of these weapons hurts no one. If they are misused then punish the person that misused it and not the rest of us. This legislation is saying that a person owning a specific weapon is more likely to misuse it than someone who owns a different weapon. This isn't "Minority Report" and the Missouri legislature isn't the Pre-Crime unit.
What is funny about all these proposed ban's is they are doing the polar opposite of what the intent is. So many firearms and ammo have been sold in the last 3-4 months that stores are out of product to sell. Try to find an AR new from a manufacturer. It will be tough and most likely you will be added on a waiting list.
Personally I'm afraid that some of the restrictions will be past, one can only hope the Supreme Court puts the kabash to many of these outlandish proposals.
......one can only hope the Supreme Court puts the kabash to many of these outlandish proposals.
Presidents come and go regularly. Those on the Supreme Court get lifetime appointments. The make up of the SC (and concerns about what it might look like in another few years) is the main reason that I voted the way I did.
Presidents come and go regularly. Those on the Supreme Court get lifetime appointments. The make up of the SC (and concerns about what it might look like in another few years) is the main reason that I voted the way I did.
Because no one has the guts to challenge them. Article 3, Section 1 -
Quote:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
I consider good behavior following the Constitution as it is written.
Shall Not Be Infringed. Gun rights aren't there for hunting, but rather to protect us from a tyrannical government. Kind of like a government that would demand we hand in our guns, leaving ourselves defenseless.
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.
